This is a modern-English version of Amusements in Mathematics, originally written by Dudeney, Henry Ernest.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Transcribers note: Many of the puzzles in this book assume a familiarity with the currency of Great Britain in the early 1900s. As this is likely not common knowledge for those outside Britain (and possibly many within,) I am including a chart of relative values.
Transcribers note: Many of the puzzles in this book assume you know about the currency of Great Britain in the early 1900s. Since this might not be common knowledge for people outside of Britain (and maybe even some inside), I'm including a chart of relative values.
The most common units used were:
The most common units used were:
the Penny, | abbreviated: d. (from the Roman penny, denarius) |
the Shilling, | abbreviated: s. |
the Pound, | abbreviated: £ |
There was 12 Pennies to a Shilling and 20 Shillings to a Pound, so there was 240 Pennies in a Pound.
There were 12 pennies in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound, so there were 240 pennies in a pound.
To further complicate things, there were many coins which were various fractional values of Pennies, Shillings or Pounds.
To make things even more complicated, there were a lot of coins that were different fractional values of Pennies, Shillings, or Pounds.
Farthing | ¼d. |
Half-penny | ½d. |
Penny | 1d. |
Three-penny | 3d. |
Sixpence (or tanner) | 6d. |
Shilling (or bob) | 1s. |
Florin or two shilling piece | 2s. |
Half-crown (or half-dollar) | 2s. 6d. |
Double-florin | 4s. |
Crown (or dollar) | 5s. |
Half-Sovereign | 10s. |
Sovereign (or Pound) | £1 or 20s. |
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it should be adequate to solve the puzzles in this book.
This isn't a complete list, but it should be enough to solve the puzzles in this book.
AMUSEMENTS IN MATHEMATICS
by
HENRY ERNEST DUDENEY
In math, he was greater Than Tycho Brahe or Erra Pater: For he, by geometric scale, Could take the size of beer mugs; Resolve, using sines and tangents, directly, If bread or butter desired weight; And wisely share what time of day it is. The clock ticks according to algebra.
BUTLER'S Hudibras.
|
1917
PREFACE
In issuing this volume of my Mathematical Puzzles, of which some have appeared in periodicals and others are given here for the first time, I must acknowledge the encouragement that I have received from many unknown correspondents, at home and abroad, who have expressed a desire to have the problems in a collected form, with some of the solutions given at greater length than is possible in magazines and newspapers. Though I have included a few old puzzles that have interested the world for generations, where I felt that there was something new to be said about them, the problems are in the main original. It is true that some of these have become widely known through the press, and it is possible that the reader may be glad to know their source.
In putting together this collection of my Mathematical Puzzles, some of which have been published in magazines and others presented here for the first time, I want to thank the many unknown correspondents, both local and international, who encouraged me and expressed a wish to see the problems compiled in one place, with some solutions explained more thoroughly than what’s possible in periodicals. While I’ve included a few classic puzzles that have captivated people for ages, where I felt there was something new to discuss, most of the problems are original. It’s true that some of these have gained popularity through the media, and the reader might appreciate knowing where they originated.
On the question of Mathematical Puzzles in general there is, perhaps, little more to be said than I have written elsewhere. The history of the subject entails nothing short of the actual story of the beginnings and development of exact thinking in man. The historian must start from the time when man first succeeded in counting his ten fingers and in dividing an apple into two approximately equal parts. Every puzzle that is worthy of consideration can be referred to mathematics and logic. Every man, woman, and child who tries to "reason out" the answer to the simplest puzzle is working, though not of necessity consciously, on mathematical lines. Even those puzzles that we have no way of attacking except by haphazard attempts can be brought under a method of what has been called "glorified trial"—a system of shortening our labours by avoiding or eliminating what our reason tells us is useless. It is, in fact, not easy to say sometimes where the "empirical" begins and where it ends.
On the topic of Mathematical Puzzles, there isn’t really much more to say than what I’ve already written elsewhere. The history of the subject is basically the story of how exact thinking began and developed in humans. The historian should start from when humans first managed to count their ten fingers and divide an apple into two roughly equal pieces. Every puzzle worth considering can be linked to mathematics and logic. Every man, woman, and child who tries to "figure out" the answer to even the simplest puzzle is, whether they realize it or not, working along mathematical lines. Even those puzzles that we can only approach through random guesses can be organized under a method known as "glorified trial"—a system that streamlines our efforts by avoiding or eliminating what our reasoning tells us is pointless. In fact, it can sometimes be challenging to determine where the "empirical" starts and where it ends.
When a man says, "I have never solved a puzzle in my life," it is difficult to know exactly what he means, for every intelligent individual is doing it every day. The unfortunate inmates of our lunatic asylums are sent there expressly because they cannot solve puzzles—because they have lost their powers of reason. If there were no puzzles to solve, there would be no questions to ask; and if there were no questions to be asked, what a world it would be! We should all be equally omniscient, and conversation would be useless and idle.
When someone says, "I've never solved a puzzle in my life," it's hard to know what they really mean, because every smart person is doing it every day. The sad people in our mental health hospitals are there specifically because they can't solve puzzles—they've lost their ability to think logically. If there were no puzzles to solve, there would be no questions to ask; and if there were no questions to ask, what a world that would be! We would all know everything, and talking would be pointless and empty.
It is possible that some few exceedingly sober-minded mathematicians, who are impatient of any terminology in their favourite science but the academic, and who object to the elusive x and y appearing under any other names, will have wished that various problems had been presented in a less popular dress and introduced with a less flippant phraseology. I can only refer them to the first word of my title and remind them that we are primarily out to be amused—not, it is true, without some hope of picking up morsels of knowledge by the way. If the manner is light, I can only say, in the words of Touchstone, that it is "an ill-favoured thing, sir, but my own; a poor humour of mine, sir."
It's possible that a few very serious mathematicians, who can't stand any terminology in their favorite field but the academic, and who object to the elusive x and y being referred to by any other names, might wish that various problems had been presented in a less casual style and introduced with a more serious tone. I can only point them to the first word of my title and remind them that our main goal is to be entertained—not that we don’t also hope to pick up some bits of knowledge along the way. If the style is light-hearted, I can only say, in the words of Touchstone, that it is "an ill-favoured thing, sir, but my own; a poor humour of mine, sir."
As for the question of difficulty, some of the puzzles, especially in the Arithmetical and Algebraical category, are quite easy. Yet some of those examples that look the simplest should not be passed over without a little consideration, for now and again it will be found that there is some more or less subtle pitfall or trap into which the reader may be apt to fall. It is good exercise to cultivate the habit of being very wary over the exact wording of a puzzle. It teaches exactitude and caution. But some of the problems are very hard nuts indeed, and not unworthy of the attention of the advanced mathematician. Readers will doubtless select according to their individual tastes.
As for the question of difficulty, some of the puzzles, especially in the Arithmetical and Algebraical category, are quite easy. However, some of the examples that seem the simplest shouldn't be overlooked without a bit of thought, because now and then, there will be some subtle pitfall or trap that the reader might easily fall into. It's good practice to develop the habit of being very careful about the exact wording of a puzzle. It teaches precision and caution. But some of the problems are really tough and definitely worthy of the attention of advanced mathematicians. Readers will surely choose based on their personal preferences.
In many cases only the mere answers are given. This leaves the beginner something to do on his own behalf in working out the method of solution, and saves space that would be wasted from the point of view of the advanced student. On the other hand, in particular cases where it seemed likely to interest, I have given rather extensive solutions and treated problems in a general manner. It will often be found that the notes on one problem will serve to elucidate a good many others in the book; so that the reader's difficulties will sometimes be found cleared up as he advances. Where it is possible to say a thing in a manner that may be "understanded of the people" generally, I prefer to use this simple phraseology, and so engage the attention and interest of a larger public. The mathematician will in such cases have no difficulty in expressing the matter under consideration in terms of his familiar symbols.
In many cases, only the basic answers are provided. This gives beginners a chance to figure out the method of solution on their own and saves space that would be unnecessary for more experienced students. However, in certain instances where it seemed likely to engage interest, I have included more detailed solutions and approached problems in a broader way. You’ll often find that the notes on one problem clarify several others in the book, so readers' difficulties will occasionally be resolved as they progress. When it's possible to explain something in a way that is easy for most people to understand, I prefer to use straightforward language to capture the attention and interest of a wider audience. Mathematicians will have no trouble expressing the topic in their familiar symbols in those cases.
I have taken the greatest care in reading the proofs, and trust that any errors that may have crept in are very few. If any such should occur, I can only plead, in the words of Horace, that "good Homer sometimes nods," or, as the bishop put it, "Not even the youngest curate in my diocese is infallible."
I’ve been very careful while reviewing the proofs and hope that any mistakes that might have slipped in are minimal. If there are any, I can only say, as Horace put it, that “even the great Homer makes mistakes,” or, as the bishop said, “Not even the youngest curate in my diocese is perfect.”
I have to express my thanks in particular to the proprietors of The Strand Magazine, Cassell's Magazine, The Queen, Tit-Bits, and The Weekly Dispatch for their courtesy in allowing me to reprint some of the puzzles that have appeared in their pages.
I want to extend my special thanks to the owners of The Strand Magazine, Cassell's Magazine, The Queen, Tit-Bits, and The Weekly Dispatch for their generosity in letting me reprint some of the puzzles that were published in their magazines.
THE AUTHORS' CLUB
March 25, 1917
THE AUTHORS' CLUB
March 25, 1917
CONTENTS
AMUSEMENTS IN MATHEMATICS.
ARITHMETICAL AND ALGEBRAICAL PROBLEMS.
"And what was he?
Forsooth, a great arithmetician."
Othello, I. i.
"And what was he?"
"Indeed, a great mathematician."
Othello, Act I, Scene i.
The puzzles in this department are roughly thrown together in classes for the convenience of the reader. Some are very easy, others quite difficult. But they are not arranged in any order of difficulty—and this is intentional, for it is well that the solver should not be warned that a puzzle is just what it seems to be. It may, therefore, prove to be quite as simple as it looks, or it may contain some pitfall into which, through want of care or over-confidence, we may stumble.
The puzzles in this section are loosely grouped into categories for the reader's convenience. Some are very easy, while others are quite challenging. However, they aren't organized by difficulty on purpose, because it's better for the solver not to be tipped off that a puzzle is exactly what it appears to be. Thus, it could turn out to be as simple as it looks, or it might have some traps that we can fall into due to carelessness or overconfidence.
Also, the arithmetical and algebraical puzzles are not separated in the manner adopted by some authors, who arbitrarily require certain problems to be solved by one method or the other. The reader is left to make his own choice and determine which puzzles are capable of being solved by him on purely arithmetical lines.
Also, the math and algebra puzzles aren't divided like some authors do, who insist on solving certain problems with one method or another. The reader can choose for themselves and figure out which puzzles they can solve using just arithmetic.
MONEY PUZZLES.
"Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust."
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES.
"Don’t depend on money, but invest it smartly." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES.
In every business of life we are occasionally perplexed by some chance question that for the moment staggers us. I quite pitied a young lady in a branch post-office when a gentleman entered and deposited a crown on the counter with this request: "Please give me some twopenny stamps, six times as many penny stamps, and make up the rest of the money in twopence-halfpenny stamps." For a moment she seemed bewildered, then her brain cleared, and with a smile she handed over stamps in exact fulfilment of the order. How long would it have taken you to think it out?
In every aspect of life, we're sometimes caught off guard by a random question that throws us for a loop. I really felt for a young woman working at a branch post office when a man came in and put a crown on the counter with this request: "Can I get some two-penny stamps, six times as many one-penny stamps, and the rest in two-and-a-half-penny stamps?" For a moment, she looked confused, but then she gathered her thoughts and, with a smile, handed over the stamps exactly as he requested. How long do you think it would have taken you to figure that out?
The precocity of some youths is surprising. One is disposed to say on occasion, "That boy of yours is a genius, and he is certain to do great things when he grows up;" but past experience has taught us that he invariably becomes quite an ordinary citizen. It is so often the case, on the contrary, that the dull boy becomes a great man. You never can tell. Nature loves to present to us these queer paradoxes. It is well known that those wonderful "lightning calculators," who now and again surprise the world by their feats, lose all their mysterious powers directly they are taught the elementary rules of arithmetic.
The talent of some young people is surprising. You might sometimes say, "That kid of yours is a genius, and he’s definitely going to do amazing things when he grows up;" but past experience has shown us that he usually turns out to be just an average adult. On the flip side, it’s often the case that the slow kid becomes a successful adult. You can never tell. Nature loves to show us these strange contradictions. It’s well known that those amazing "lightning calculators," who occasionally impress the world with their skills, lose all their special abilities as soon as they learn the basic rules of math.
A boy who was demolishing a choice banana was approached by a young friend, who, regarding him with envious eyes, asked, "How much did you pay for that banana, Fred?" The prompt answer was quite remarkable in its way: "The man what I bought it of receives just half as many sixpences for sixteen dozen dozen bananas as he gives bananas for a fiver."
A boy who was enjoying a great banana was approached by a young friend, who, looking at him with envy, asked, "How much did you pay for that banana, Fred?" The quick answer was quite impressive in its own way: "The guy I bought it from gets half as many sixpences for sixteen dozen bananas as he gives bananas for a fiver."
Now, how long will it take the reader to say correctly just how much Fred paid for his rare and refreshing fruit?
Now, how long will it take the reader to accurately say how much Fred paid for his rare and refreshing fruit?
Three countrymen met at a cattle market. "Look here," said Hodge to Jakes, "I'll give you six of my pigs for one of your horses, and then you'll have twice as many animals here as I've got." "If that's your way of doing business," said Durrant to Hodge, "I'll give you fourteen of my sheep for a horse, and then you'll have three times as many animals as I." "Well, I'll go better than that," said Jakes to Durrant; "I'll give you four cows for a horse, Pg 2and then you'll have six times as many animals as I've got here."
Three farmers met at a livestock market. "Hey," said Hodge to Jakes, "I'll trade you six of my pigs for one of your horses, and then you'll have twice as many animals here as I do." "If that's how you want to do business," Durrant said to Hodge, "I'll give you fourteen of my sheep for a horse, and then you'll have three times as many animals as I have." "Well, I can top that," Jakes said to Durrant; "I'll give you four cows for a horse, Pg 2and then you'll have six times as many animals as I've got here."
No doubt this was a very primitive way of bartering animals, but it is an interesting little puzzle to discover just how many animals Jakes, Hodge, and Durrant must have taken to the cattle market.
No doubt this was a very basic way of trading animals, but it’s an intriguing little puzzle to figure out how many animals Jakes, Hodge, and Durrant must have brought to the cattle market.
A number of men went out together on a bean-feast. There were four parties invited—namely, 25 cobblers, 20 tailors, 18 hatters, and 12 glovers. They spent altogether £6, 13s. It was found that five cobblers spent as much as four tailors; that twelve tailors spent as much as nine hatters; and that six hatters spent as much as eight glovers. The puzzle is to find out how much each of the four parties spent.
A group of men went out together for a feast. There were four groups invited—specifically, 25 cobblers, 20 tailors, 18 hatters, and 12 glovers. They spent a total of £6, 13s. It was discovered that five cobblers spent the same as four tailors; that twelve tailors spent the same as nine hatters; and that six hatters spent the same as eight glovers. The challenge is to figure out how much each of the four groups spent.
Seven men, whose names were Adams, Baker, Carter, Dobson, Edwards, Francis, and Gudgeon, were recently engaged in play. The name of the particular game is of no consequence. They had agreed that whenever a player won a game he should double the money of each of the other players—that is, he was to give the players just as much money as they had already in their pockets. They played seven games, and, strange to say, each won a game in turn, in the order in which their names are given. But a more curious coincidence is this—that when they had finished play each of the seven men had exactly the same amount—two shillings and eightpence—in his pocket. The puzzle is to find out how much money each man had with him before he sat down to play.
Seven men, named Adams, Baker, Carter, Dobson, Edwards, Francis, and Gudgeon, were recently playing a game. The specific game isn't important. They decided that whenever a player won, he would double the money for each of the other players—that is, he would give them the same amount they already had. They played seven games, and oddly enough, each one of them won a game in the order their names are listed. But what's even more interesting is that when they finished playing, each of the seven men ended up with exactly the same amount—two shillings and eightpence—in their pockets. The challenge is to determine how much money each man had with him before they started playing.
A man left instructions to his executors to distribute once a year exactly fifty-five shillings among the poor of his parish; but they were only to continue the gift so long as they could make it in different ways, always giving eighteenpence each to a number of women and half a crown each to men. During how many years could the charity be administered? Of course, by "different ways" is meant a different number of men and women every time.
A man instructed his executors to distribute fifty-five shillings each year to the poor in his parish. However, they were to continue giving the donations only as long as they could do so in various ways, always providing eighteen pence each to multiple women and two and six each to men. For how many years could the charity be provided? By "different ways," it means a different number of men and women each time.
A gentleman who recently died left the sum of £8,000 to be divided among his widow, five sons, and four daughters. He directed that every son should receive three times as much as a daughter, and that every daughter should have twice as much as their mother. What was the widow's share?
A gentleman who recently died left £8,000 to be shared among his widow, five sons, and four daughters. He specified that each son should get three times what a daughter receives, and that each daughter should get twice as much as their mother. What was the widow's share?
A charitable gentleman, on his way home one night, was appealed to by three needy persons in succession for assistance. To the first person he gave one penny more than half the money he had in his pocket; to the second person he gave twopence more than half the money he then had in his pocket; and to the third person he handed over threepence more than half of what he had left. On entering his house he had only one penny in his pocket. Now, can you say exactly how much money that gentleman had on him when he started for home?
A charitable man was walking home one night when three needy people approached him one after the other asking for help. To the first person, he gave one penny more than half the money he had on him. To the second person, he gave two pence more than half of what he had left. To the third person, he handed over three pence more than half of what remained. When he got home, he had just one penny left in his pocket. Now, can you figure out exactly how much money that man had when he left for home?
A man recently bought two aeroplanes, but afterwards found that they would not answer the purpose for which he wanted them. So he sold them for £600 each, making a loss of 20 per cent, on one machine and a profit of 20 per cent, on the other. Did he make a profit on the whole transaction, or a loss? And how much?
A man recently bought two airplanes, but later realized they wouldn't meet his needs. So he sold them for £600 each, taking a loss of 20% on one plane and making a 20% profit on the other. Did he make a profit overall or a loss? And how much?
"Whom do you think I met in town last week, Brother William?" said Uncle Benjamin. "That old skinflint Jorkins. His family had been taking him around buying Christmas presents. He said to me, 'Why cannot the government abolish Christmas, and make the giving of presents punishable by law? I came out this morning with a certain amount of money in my pocket, and I find I have spent just half of it. In fact, if you will believe me, I take home just as many shillings as I had pounds, and half as many pounds as I had shillings. It is monstrous!'" Can you say exactly how much money Jorkins had spent on those presents?
"Guess who I ran into in town last week, Brother William?" Uncle Benjamin said. "That old miser Jorkins. His family had been dragging him around to buy Christmas gifts. He told me, 'Why can't the government just get rid of Christmas and make giving presents a crime? I came out this morning with a certain amount of cash, and I've only spent half of it. Honestly, if you believe me, I'm taking home the same amount of shillings as I had pounds, and half as many pounds as I had shillings. It’s ridiculous!'" Can you say exactly how much money Jorkins had spent on those presents?
Some cyclists rode overseas in beautiful weather.
Taking a break at noon in an old tavern,
They all decided to have a feast together.
"Consolidate everything into one bill, host," they said,
"Every man will pay an equal share." The bill was quickly placed on the table,
And four pounds was the total that day.
But, sadly, when they got ready to face off,
It was discovered that two had snuck outside and escaped.
So, for two shillings more than his fair share
Every honest man who stayed was bled.
They definitely settled things later with those rogues.
How many were there when they first set out?
It will be found that £66, 6s. 6d. equals 15,918 pence. Now, the four 6's added together make 24, and the figures in 15,918 also add to 24. It is a curious fact that there is only one other sum of money, in pounds, shillings, and pence (all similarly repetitions of one figure), of which the digits shall add up the same as the digits of the amount in pence. What is the other sum of money?
You will find that £66, 6s. 6d. equals 15,918 pence. Now, adding the four 6s together gives us 24, and the digits in 15,918 also add up to 24. It’s curious that there's only one other amount of money, in pounds, shillings, and pence (all repeating one figure), where the digits add up the same as the digits of the amount in pence. What is the other amount of money?
The largest sum of money that can be written in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, using each of the nine digits once and only once, is Pg 3£98,765, 4s. 3½d. Now, try to discover the smallest sum of money that can be written down under precisely the same conditions. There must be some value given for each denomination—pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings—and the nought may not be used. It requires just a little judgment and thought.
The largest amount of money that can be written in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, using each of the nine digits once and only once, is Pg 3£98,765, 4s. 3½d. Now, see if you can find the smallest amount of money that can be written down under exactly the same conditions. Each denomination—pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings—must have a value, and you can't use zero. It just takes a bit of judgment and thought.
"This is queer," said McCrank to his friend. "Twopence added to twopence is fourpence, and twopence multiplied by twopence is also fourpence." Of course, he was wrong in thinking you can multiply money by money. The multiplier must be regarded as an abstract number. It is true that two feet multiplied by two feet will make four square feet. Similarly, two pence multiplied by two pence will produce four square pence! And it will perplex the reader to say what a "square penny" is. But we will assume for the purposes of our puzzle that twopence multiplied by twopence is fourpence. Now, what two amounts of money will produce the next smallest possible result, the same in both cases, when added or multiplied in this manner? The two amounts need not be alike, but they must be those that can be paid in current coins of the realm.
"This is strange," said McCrank to his friend. "Two pence added to two pence is four pence, and two pence multiplied by two pence is also four pence." Of course, he was wrong to think you can multiply money by money. The multiplier needs to be seen as an abstract number. It’s true that two feet multiplied by two feet will give you four square feet. Similarly, two pence multiplied by two pence will give you four square pence! And it’s confusing to describe what a "square penny" is. But for the sake of our riddle, let’s assume that two pence multiplied by two pence equals four pence. Now, what two amounts of money will yield the next smallest possible result, the same in both scenarios, when added or multiplied like this? The two amounts don’t have to be the same, but they must be ones that can be paid with current coins.
What is the largest sum of money—all in current silver coins and no four-shilling piece—that I could have in my pocket without being able to give change for a half-sovereign?
What is the largest amount of money—all in current silver coins and no four-shilling piece—that I could have in my pocket without being able to give change for a half-sovereign?
Mr. Morgan G. Bloomgarten, the millionaire, known in the States as the Clam King, had, for his sins, more money than he knew what to do with. It bored him. So he determined to persecute some of his poor but happy friends with it. They had never done him any harm, but he resolved to inoculate them with the "source of all evil." He therefore proposed to distribute a million dollars among them and watch them go rapidly to the bad. But he was a man of strange fancies and superstitions, and it was an inviolable rule with him never to make a gift that was not either one dollar or some power of seven—such as 7, 49, 343, 2,401, which numbers of dollars are produced by simply multiplying sevens together. Another rule of his was that he would never give more than six persons exactly the same sum. Now, how was he to distribute the 1,000,000 dollars? You may distribute the money among as many people as you like, under the conditions given.
Mr. Morgan G. Bloomgarten, the millionaire known in the U.S. as the Clam King, had more money than he knew what to do with due to his mistakes. It bored him. So he decided to mess with some of his poor but happy friends by using it. They had never done him any harm, but he was determined to infect them with the "source of all evil." He planned to distribute a million dollars among them and watch them quickly go downhill. However, he was a man of odd beliefs and superstitions, and he had a strict rule never to give a gift that wasn't either one dollar or a power of seven—like 7, 49, 343, or 2,401, which are all created by multiplying sevens together. Another rule he followed was that he would never give the same amount of money to more than six people. So, how was he going to distribute the 1,000,000 dollars? You can distribute the money among as many people as you want, following the given rules.
Four brothers—named John, William, Charles, and Thomas—had each a money-box. The boxes were all given to them on the same day, and they at once put what money they had into them; only, as the boxes were not very large, they first changed the money into as few coins as possible. After they had done this, they told one another how much money they had saved, and it was found that if John had had 2s. more in his box than at present, if William had had 2s. less, if Charles had had twice as much, and if Thomas had had half as much, they would all have had exactly the same amount.
Four brothers—John, William, Charles, and Thomas—each had a money box. They all received the boxes on the same day and immediately put all their money into them; however, since the boxes weren't very big, they first exchanged their money for the fewest coins possible. After doing this, they shared how much money each of them had saved, and it turned out that if John had had 2s. more in his box, if William had had 2s. less, if Charles had had double the amount, and if Thomas had had half of what he had, they would all have had exactly the same amount.
Now, when I add that all four boxes together contained 45s., and that there were only six coins in all in them, it becomes an entertaining puzzle to discover just what coins were in each box.
Now, when I mention that all four boxes together held 45s., and that there were only six coins total among them, it turns into an interesting puzzle to find out which coins were in each box.
A number of market women sold their various products at a certain price per pound (different in every case), and each received the same amount—2s. 2½d. What is the greatest number of women there could have been? The price per pound in every case must be such as could be paid in current money.
A number of market women sold their different products at a specific price per pound (which varied in each case), and each received the same amount—2s. 2½d. What is the maximum number of women that there could have been? The price per pound in every case had to be such that it could be paid in current money.
The proprietor of a small London café has given me some interesting figures. He says that the ladies who come alone to his place for refreshment spend each on an average eighteenpence, that the unaccompanied men spend half a crown each, and that when a gentleman brings in a lady he spends half a guinea. On New Year's Eve he supplied suppers to twenty-five persons, and took five pounds in all. Now, assuming his averages to have held good in every case, how was his company made up on that occasion? Of course, only single gentlemen, single ladies, and pairs (a lady and gentleman) can be supposed to have been present, as we are not considering larger parties.
The owner of a small café in London shared some interesting figures with me. He says that the women who come alone to his café for a snack spend an average of 90 pence each, while the solo men spend about 2 shillings and 6 pence each, and when a man brings a woman, he spends about 10 shillings. On New Year's Eve, he served supper to twenty-five people and made a total of five pounds. Now, assuming his averages were consistent in every case, what was the composition of his guests that evening? Obviously, we can only assume there were single men, single women, and couples (a man and a woman) present, as we are not considering larger groups.
"A neighbour of mine," said Aunt Jane, "bought a certain quantity of beef at two shillings a pound, and the same quantity of sausages at eighteenpence a pound. I pointed out to her that if she had divided the same money equally between beef and sausages she would have gained two pounds in the total weight. Can you tell me exactly how much she spent?"
"A neighbor of mine," said Aunt Jane, "bought a certain amount of beef at two shillings a pound and the same amount of sausages at eighteen pence a pound. I pointed out to her that if she had split the money equally between beef and sausages, she would have gained two pounds in total weight. Can you tell me exactly how much she spent?"
"Of course, it is no business of mine," said Mrs. Sunniborne; "but a lady who could pay such prices must be somewhat inexperienced in domestic economy."
"Of course, it's not my place to say," Mrs. Sunniborne remarked, "but a woman who can afford such prices must be a bit inexperienced in managing a household."
"I quite agree, my dear," Aunt Jane replied, "but you see that is not the precise point under discussion, any more than the name and morals of the tradesman."
"I completely agree, my dear," Aunt Jane replied, "but you see, that isn't the exact point we're discussing, any more than the name and ethics of the merchant."
I paid a man a shilling for some apples, but they were so small that I made him throw in two extra apples. I find that made them cost just a penny a dozen less than the first price he asked. How many apples did I get for my shilling?
I paid a guy a shilling for some apples, but they were so small that I got him to throw in two extra apples. I figured that made them cost just a penny a dozen less than the first price he quoted. How many apples did I end up with for my shilling?
A man went recently into a dairyman's shop to buy eggs. He wanted them of various qualities. Pg 4The salesman had new-laid eggs at the high price of fivepence each, fresh eggs at one penny each, eggs at a halfpenny each, and eggs for electioneering purposes at a greatly reduced figure, but as there was no election on at the time the buyer had no use for the last. However, he bought some of each of the three other kinds and obtained exactly one hundred eggs for eight and fourpence. Now, as he brought away exactly the same number of eggs of two of the three qualities, it is an interesting puzzle to determine just how many he bought at each price.
A man recently walked into a dairy shop to buy eggs. He wanted them in different qualities. Pg 4The shopkeeper had fresh-laid eggs for five pence each, regular fresh eggs for one penny each, cheaper eggs for half a penny each, and campaign eggs at a much lower price, but since there was no election happening, the buyer had no use for those. Still, he bought some of each of the other three types and ended up with exactly one hundred eggs for eight shillings and four pence. Since he took home the same number of eggs from two of the three categories, it's an interesting puzzle to figure out how many he bought at each price.
Some years ago a man told me he had spent one hundred English silver coins in Christmas-boxes, giving every person the same amount, and it cost him exactly £1, 10s. 1d. Can you tell just how many persons received the present, and how he could have managed the distribution? That odd penny looks queer, but it is all right.
Some years ago, a man told me he had spent one hundred English silver coins on Christmas gifts, giving every person the same amount, and it cost him exactly £1, 10s. 1d. Can you figure out how many people received the present and how he managed the distribution? That odd penny seems strange, but it’s all good.
Two ladies went into a shop where, through some curious eccentricity, no change was given, and made purchases amounting together to less than five shillings. "Do you know," said one lady, "I find I shall require no fewer than six current coins of the realm to pay for what I have bought." The other lady considered a moment, and then exclaimed: "By a peculiar coincidence, I am exactly in the same dilemma." "Then we will pay the two bills together." But, to their astonishment, they still required six coins. What is the smallest possible amount of their purchases—both different?
Two women went into a store where, for some strange reason, no change was given, and they made purchases that added up to less than five shillings. "You know," said one woman, "I realize I’ll need exactly six current coins to pay for what I bought." The other woman thought for a moment and then said, "By a funny coincidence, I’m in exactly the same situation." "Then let's pay both bills together." But, to their surprise, they still needed six coins. What is the smallest possible amount of their purchases—both different?
The Chinese are a curious people, and have strange inverted ways of doing things. It is said that they use a saw with an upward pressure instead of a downward one, that they plane a deal board by pulling the tool toward them instead of pushing it, and that in building a house they first construct the roof and, having raised that into position, proceed to work downwards. In money the currency of the country consists of taels of fluctuating value. The tael became thinner and thinner until 2,000 of them piled together made less than three inches in height. The common cash consists of brass coins of varying thicknesses, with a round, square, or triangular hole in the centre, as in our illustration.
The Chinese are a curious people with some unique ways of doing things. It's said that they use a saw with an upward motion instead of downward, that they plane a wooden board by pulling the tool towards them rather than pushing it, and that when building a house, they first construct the roof and, after raising it into place, work their way down. In terms of currency, the country's money consists of taels with fluctuating values. The tael became thinner and thinner until 2,000 of them stacked together were less than three inches high. The common cash consists of brass coins of different thicknesses, featuring a round, square, or triangular hole in the center, like in our illustration.

These are strung on wires like buttons. Supposing that eleven coins with round holes are worth fifteen ching-changs, that eleven with square holes are worth sixteen ching-changs, and that eleven with triangular holes are worth seventeen ching-changs, how can a Chinaman give me change for half a crown, using no coins other than the three mentioned? A ching-chang is worth exactly twopence and four-fifteenths of a ching-chang.
These are threaded on wires like buttons. Let's say that eleven coins with round holes are worth fifteen ching-changs, that eleven with square holes are worth sixteen ching-changs, and that eleven with triangular holes are worth seventeen ching-changs. How can a Chinese man give me change for half a crown, using only the three types of coins mentioned? A ching-chang is worth exactly two pence and four-fifteenths of a ching-chang.
Two youths, bearing the pleasant names of Moggs and Snoggs, were employed as junior clerks by a merchant in Mincing Lane. They were both engaged at the same salary—that is, commencing at the rate of £50 a year, payable half-yearly. Moggs had a yearly rise of £10, and Snoggs was offered the same, only he asked, for reasons that do not concern our puzzle, that he might take his rise at £2, 10s. half-yearly, to which his employer (not, perhaps, unnaturally!) had no objection.
Two young men, with the nice names of Moggs and Snoggs, worked as junior clerks for a merchant on Mincing Lane. They both started at the same salary—£50 a year, paid every six months. Moggs received an annual raise of £10, and Snoggs was offered the same, but for reasons that aren’t relevant to our puzzle, he requested that his raise be split into £2.50 every six months, which his employer (not surprisingly!) agreed to.
Now we come to the real point of the puzzle. Moggs put regularly into the Post Office Savings Bank a certain proportion of his salary, while Snoggs saved twice as great a proportion of his, and at the end of five years they had together saved £268, 15s. How much had each saved? The question of interest can be ignored.
Now we come to the actual point of the puzzle. Moggs regularly deposited a portion of his salary into the Post Office Savings Bank, while Snoggs saved double that percentage of his salary, and after five years they had saved a total of £268, 15s. How much did each save? We can ignore the issue of interest.
Every one is familiar with the difficulties that frequently arise over the giving of change, and how the assistance of a third person with a few coins in his pocket will sometimes help us to set the matter right. Here is an example. An Englishman went into a shop in New York and bought goods at a cost of thirty-four cents. The only money he had was a dollar, a three-cent piece, and a two-cent piece. The tradesman had only a half-dollar and a quarter-dollar. But another customer happened to be present, and when asked to help produced two dimes, a five-cent piece, a two-cent piece, and a one-cent piece. How did the tradesman manage to give change? For the benefit of those readers who are not familiar with the American coinage, it is only necessary to say that a dollar is a hundred cents and a dime ten cents. A puzzle of this kind should rarely cause any difficulty if attacked in a proper manner.
Everyone is familiar with the issues that often come up with making change, and how having a third person with some coins handy can sometimes help us resolve the situation. Here’s an example. An Englishman walked into a store in New York and bought items that cost thirty-four cents. The only money he had was a dollar, a three-cent coin, and a two-cent coin. The shopkeeper only had a fifty-cent piece and a quarter. However, another customer was present, and when asked for help, he pulled out two dimes, a five-cent coin, a two-cent coin, and a penny. How did the shopkeeper manage to give change? For those readers who aren’t familiar with American coins, it’s important to note that a dollar is one hundred cents, and a dime is ten cents. A puzzle like this shouldn’t be too difficult to solve if approached correctly.
Our observation of little things is frequently defective, and our memories very liable to lapse. A certain judge recently remarked in a case that he had no recollection whatever of putting the wedding-ring on his wife's finger. Can you correctly answer these questions without having the coins in sight? On which side of a penny is the date given? Some people are so unobservant that, although they are handling the coin nearly every day of their lives, they are at a loss to answer this simple question. If I lay a penny flat on the table, how many other pennies can I place around it, every one also lying flat on the table, so that they all touch the first one? The geometrician will, of course, give the answer at once, and not need to make any experiment. Pg 5He will also know that, since all circles are similar, the same answer will necessarily apply to any coin. The next question is a most interesting one to ask a company, each person writing down his answer on a slip of paper, so that no one shall be helped by the answers of others. What is the greatest number of three-penny-pieces that may be laid flat on the surface of a half-crown, so that no piece lies on another or overlaps the surface of the half-crown? It is amazing what a variety of different answers one gets to this question. Very few people will be found to give the correct number. Of course the answer must be given without looking at the coins.
Our observation of small things is often poor, and our memories are prone to forget. A judge recently noted in a case that he couldn’t remember putting the wedding ring on his wife’s finger. Can you accurately answer these questions without seeing the coins? Which side of a penny shows the date? Some people are so inattentive that even though they handle the coin almost daily, they struggle to answer this simple question. If I lay a penny flat on the table, how many other pennies can I arrange around it, all lying flat, so that they all touch the first one? A mathematician will obviously know the answer right away without needing to experiment. Pg 5 They will also understand that since all circles are similar, the same answer applies to any coin. The next question is quite interesting to ask a group, with each person writing down their answer on a piece of paper so no one gets influenced by others. What is the maximum number of three-penny pieces that can be laid flat on the surface of a half-crown without any piece sitting on another or overlapping the half-crown's surface? It’s surprising how many different answers people come up with for this question. Very few will give the correct number. Of course, the answer must be provided without looking at the coins.
A man had three coins—a sovereign, a shilling, and a penny—and he found that exactly the same fraction of each coin had been broken away. Now, assuming that the original intrinsic value of these coins was the same as their nominal value—that is, that the sovereign was worth a pound, the shilling worth a shilling, and the penny worth a penny—what proportion of each coin has been lost if the value of the three remaining fragments is exactly one pound?
A man had three coins—a sovereign, a shilling, and a penny—and he discovered that the same fraction of each coin had been broken off. Now, assuming that the original value of these coins was the same as their face value—that is, the sovereign was worth one pound, the shilling was worth one shilling, and the penny was worth one penny—what portion of each coin has been lost if the total value of the three remaining pieces is exactly one pound?
There is perhaps no class of puzzle over which people so frequently blunder as that which involves what is called the theory of probabilities. I will give two simple examples of the sort of puzzle I mean. They are really quite easy, and yet many persons are tripped up by them. A friend recently produced five pennies and said to me: "In throwing these five pennies at the same time, what are the chances that at least four of the coins will turn up either all heads or all tails?" His own solution was quite wrong, but the correct answer ought not to be hard to discover. Another person got a wrong answer to the following little puzzle which I heard him propound: "A man placed three sovereigns and one shilling in a bag. How much should be paid for permission to draw one coin from it?" It is, of course, understood that you are as likely to draw any one of the four coins as another.
There’s probably no type of puzzle that people mess up more often than those involving probability theory. I’ll provide two simple examples of the kind of puzzle I mean. They’re actually quite easy, yet many people stumble over them. A friend recently pulled out five pennies and asked me, “When we toss these five pennies at once, what are the chances that at least four will land either all heads or all tails?” His own solution was completely wrong, but figuring out the correct answer shouldn’t be too difficult. Another person got the wrong answer to this little puzzle I overheard him ask: “A man put three sovereigns and one shilling in a bag. How much should you pay to draw one coin from it?” It's understood that you’re just as likely to pick any one of the four coins as the others.
Young Mrs. Perkins, of Putney, writes to me as follows: "I should be very glad if you could give me the answer to a little sum that has been worrying me a good deal lately. Here it is: We have only been married a short time, and now, at the end of two years from the time when we set up housekeeping, my husband tells me that he finds we have spent a third of his yearly income in rent, rates, and taxes, one-half in domestic expenses, and one-ninth in other ways. He has a balance of £190 remaining in the bank. I know this last, because he accidentally left out his pass-book the other day, and I peeped into it. Don't you think that a husband ought to give his wife his entire confidence in his money matters? Well, I do; and—will you believe it?—he has never told me what his income really is, and I want, very naturally, to find out. Can you tell me what it is from the figures I have given you?"
Young Mrs. Perkins, from Putney, writes to me as follows: "I would really appreciate it if you could help me solve a little problem that’s been bothering me a lot lately. Here it is: We’ve only been married a short time, and now, two years after we started our life together, my husband tells me that he finds we’ve spent a third of his annual income on rent, rates, and taxes, half on living expenses, and a ninth on other things. He has a balance of £190 left in the bank. I know this because he accidentally left his passbook out the other day, and I took a look. Don’t you think a husband should give his wife complete honesty about his finances? I do; and—can you believe it?—he’s never told me what his actual income is, and I’d really like to find out. Can you help me figure it out from the numbers I’ve shared?"
Yes; the answer can certainly be given from the figures contained in Mrs. Perkins's letter. And my readers, if not warned, will be practically unanimous in declaring the income to be—something absurdly in excess of the correct answer!
Yes; the answer can definitely be found in the figures from Mrs. Perkins's letter. And my readers, if not cautioned, will almost all agree that the income is—ridiculously higher than the actual answer!
When the big flaming placards were exhibited at the little provincial railway station, announcing that the Great —— Company would run cheap excursion trains to London for the Christmas holidays, the inhabitants of Mudley-cum-Turmits were in quite a flutter of excitement. Half an hour before the train came in the little booking office was crowded with country passengers, all bent on visiting their friends in the great Metropolis. The booking clerk was unaccustomed to dealing with crowds of such a dimension, and he told me afterwards, while wiping his manly brow, that what caused him so much trouble was the fact that these rustics paid their fares in such a lot of small money.
When the big bright signs were displayed at the small provincial train station, announcing that the Great —— Company would be running cheap excursion trains to London for the Christmas holidays, the people of Mudley-cum-Turmits were really excited. Half an hour before the train arrived, the little ticket office was packed with country passengers, all eager to visit their friends in the big city. The ticket clerk wasn't used to handling crowds of this size, and he later told me, while wiping his brow, that what made things difficult for him was the fact that these locals paid their fares with so many coins.
He said that he had enough farthings to supply a West End draper with change for a week, and a sufficient number of threepenny pieces for the congregations of three parish churches. "That excursion fare," said he, "is nineteen shillings and ninepence, and I should like to know in just how many different ways it is possible for such an amount to be paid in the current coin of this realm."
He said he had enough coins to give a West End shopkeeper change for a week, and plenty of threepenny coins for the crowds at three different churches. "That train fare," he said, "is nineteen shillings and ninepence, and I'd like to know how many different ways this amount can be paid with the money we have in circulation."
Here, then, is a puzzle: In how many different ways may nineteen shillings and ninepence be paid in our current coin? Remember that the fourpenny-piece is not now current.
Here’s a puzzle: In how many different ways can nineteen shillings and nine pence be paid using our current coins? Keep in mind that the fourpenny piece is no longer in circulation.
Most people know that if you take any sum of money in pounds, shillings, and pence, in which the number of pounds (less than £12) exceeds that of the pence, reverse it (calling the pounds pence and the pence pounds), find the difference, then reverse and add this difference, the result is always £12, 18s. 11d. But if we omit the condition, "less than £12," and allow nought to represent shillings or pence—(1) What is the lowest amount to which the rule will not apply? (2) What is the highest amount to which it will apply? Of course, when reversing such a sum as £14, 15s. 3d. it may be written £3, 16s. 2d., which is the same as £3, 15s. 14d.
Most people know that if you take any amount of money in pounds, shillings, and pence where the number of pounds (less than £12) is greater than the number of pence, reverse it (switching the pounds to pence and the pence to pounds), find the difference, then reverse that difference and add it, the result will always be £12, 18s. 11d. But if we drop the condition of "less than £12" and allow zero to represent shillings or pence—(1) What is the lowest amount where the rule doesn’t apply? (2) What is the highest amount where it does apply? Of course, when reversing an amount like £14, 15s. 3d. it can be written as £3, 16s. 2d., which is the same as £3, 15s. 14d.
A country "grocer and draper" had two rival assistants, who prided themselves on their rapidity in serving customers. The young man on the grocery side could weigh up two one-pound parcels of sugar per minute, while the drapery assistant could cut three one-yard lengths of cloth in the same time. Their employer, one slack day, set them a race, giving Pg 6the grocer a barrel of sugar and telling him to weigh up forty-eight one-pound parcels of sugar While the draper divided a roll of forty-eight yards of cloth into yard pieces. The two men were interrupted together by customers for nine minutes, but the draper was disturbed seventeen times as long as the grocer. What was the result of the race?
A country "grocery and fabric" store had two rival assistants who took pride in how quickly they served customers. The young guy on the grocery side could weigh out two one-pound bags of sugar per minute, while the fabric assistant could cut three one-yard lengths of cloth in the same time. One slow day, their boss set up a race, giving Pg 6the grocer a barrel of sugar and telling him to weigh out forty-eight one-pound bags of sugar, while the draper split a roll of forty-eight yards of cloth into yard pieces. Both men were interrupted by customers for nine minutes, but the draper was interrupted for seventeen times longer than the grocer. What was the outcome of the race?
Hiram B. Judkins, a cattle-dealer of Texas, had five droves of animals, consisting of oxen, pigs, and sheep, with the same number of animals in each drove. One morning he sold all that he had to eight dealers. Each dealer bought the same number of animals, paying seventeen dollars for each ox, four dollars for each pig, and two dollars for each sheep; and Hiram received in all three hundred and one dollars. What is the greatest number of animals he could have had? And how many would there be of each kind?
Hiram B. Judkins, a cattle dealer from Texas, had five herds of animals, each consisting of oxen, pigs, and sheep, with the same number of animals in each herd. One morning, he sold all his animals to eight dealers. Each dealer bought the same number of animals, paying seventeen dollars for each ox, four dollars for each pig, and two dollars for each sheep; in total, Hiram received three hundred and one dollars. What is the greatest number of animals he could have had? And how many would there be of each kind?
As the purchase of apples in small quantities has always presented considerable difficulties, I think it well to offer a few remarks on this subject. We all know the story of the smart boy who, on being told by the old woman that she was selling her apples at four for threepence, said: "Let me see! Four for threepence; that's three for twopence, two for a penny, one for nothing—I'll take one!"
As buying apples in small amounts has always been quite challenging, I think it's worth sharing a few thoughts on this topic. We all know the story of the clever boy who, when the old woman said she was selling her apples at four for threepence, replied: "Let me think! Four for threepence; that makes it three for twopence, two for a penny, one for nothing—I'll take one!"
There are similar cases of perplexity. For example, a boy once picked up a penny apple from a stall, but when he learnt that the woman's pears were the same price he exchanged it, and was about to walk off. "Stop!" said the woman. "You haven't paid me for the pear!" "No," said the boy, "of course not. I gave you the apple for it." "But you didn't pay for the apple!" "Bless the woman! You don't expect me to pay for the apple and the pear too!" And before the poor creature could get out of the tangle the boy had disappeared.
There are similar cases of confusion. For instance, a boy once grabbed a penny apple from a stand, but when he found out that the woman's pears were the same price, he swapped it and was about to walk away. "Stop!" the woman said. "You haven't paid me for the pear!" "No," the boy replied, "of course not. I gave you the apple for it." "But you didn't pay for the apple!" "Good grief! You don’t expect me to pay for both the apple and the pear, do you?" And before the poor woman could untangle the situation, the boy had vanished.
Then, again, we have the case of the man who gave a boy sixpence and promised to repeat the gift as soon as the youngster had made it into ninepence. Five minutes later the boy returned. "I have made it into ninepence," he said, at the same time handing his benefactor threepence. "How do you make that out?" he was asked. "I bought threepennyworth of apples." "But that does not make it into ninepence!" "I should rather think it did," was the boy's reply. "The apple woman has threepence, hasn't she? Very well, I have threepennyworth of apples, and I have just given you the other threepence. What's that but ninepence?"
Then, there's the story of the guy who gave a boy sixpence and promised to give him another sixpence as soon as the kid turned it into ninepence. Five minutes later, the boy came back. "I’ve made it into ninepence," he said, handing over threepence to his benefactor. "How do you figure that?" he was asked. "I bought threepennyworth of apples." "But that doesn’t make it into ninepence!" "I think it does," the boy replied. "The apple woman has threepence, right? So, I have threepennyworth of apples, and I just gave you the other threepence. What’s that if not ninepence?"
I cite these cases just to show that the small boy really stands in need of a little instruction in the art of buying apples. So I will give a simple poser dealing with this branch of commerce.
I mention these examples just to illustrate that the young boy really needs some guidance on how to buy apples. So, I’ll present a straightforward question related to this area of commerce.
An old woman had apples of three sizes for sale—one a penny, two a penny, and three a penny. Of course two of the second size and three of the third size were respectively equal to one apple of the largest size. Now, a gentleman who had an equal number of boys and girls gave his children sevenpence to be spent amongst them all on these apples. The puzzle is to give each child an equal distribution of apples. How was the sevenpence spent, and how many children were there?
An old woman had apples for sale in three sizes—one for a penny, two for a penny, and three for a penny. Naturally, two apples of the second size and three apples of the third size were equal in value to one apple of the largest size. Then, a gentleman who had the same number of boys and girls gave his children seven pence to spend on these apples. The challenge is to figure out how to distribute the apples equally among the children. How was the seven pence spent, and how many children were there?
Though the following little puzzle deals with the purchase of chestnuts, it is not itself of the "chestnut" type. It is quite new. At first sight it has certainly the appearance of being of the "nonsense puzzle" character, but it is all right when properly considered.
Though the following little puzzle is about buying chestnuts, it’s not one of those “chestnut” puzzles. It’s completely original. At first glance, it might seem like a “nonsense puzzle,” but it makes sense when you think about it correctly.
A man went to a shop to buy chestnuts. He said he wanted a pennyworth, and was given five chestnuts. "It is not enough; I ought to have a sixth," he remarked! "But if I give you one chestnut more." the shopman replied, "you will have five too many." Now, strange to say, they were both right. How many chestnuts should the buyer receive for half a crown?
A man went to a store to buy chestnuts. He said he wanted a penny's worth and was given five chestnuts. "That's not enough; I should have a sixth," he said. "But if I give you one more chestnut," the shopkeeper responded, "you'll have five too many." Now, strangely enough, they were both right. How many chestnuts should the buyer get for half a crown?
Here is a little tangle that is perpetually cropping up in various guises. A cyclist bought a bicycle for £15 and gave in payment a cheque for £25. The seller went to a neighbouring shopkeeper and got him to change the cheque for him, and the cyclist, having received his £10 change, mounted the machine and disappeared. The cheque proved to be valueless, and the salesman was requested by his neighbour to refund the amount he had received. To do this, he was compelled to borrow the £25 from a friend, as the cyclist forgot to leave his address, and could not be found. Now, as the bicycle cost the salesman £11, how much money did he lose altogether?
Here’s a little mess that keeps popping up in different forms. A cyclist bought a bike for £15 and paid with a £25 check. The seller went to a nearby shopkeeper to cash the check, and after receiving his £10 change, the cyclist got on the bike and rode off. The check turned out to be worthless, and the shopkeeper asked the seller to refund the money he had received. To do this, he had to borrow £25 from a friend since the cyclist forgot to leave his address and couldn't be found. Now, since the bike cost the seller £11, how much money did he lose in total?
"How much did yer pay for them oranges, Bill?"
"How much did you pay for those oranges, Bill?"
"I ain't a-goin' to tell yer, Jim. But I beat the old cove down fourpence a hundred."
"I'm not going to tell you, Jim. But I got the old guy down to fourpence a hundred."
"What good did that do yer?"
"What good did that do you?"
"Well, it meant five more oranges on every ten shillin's-worth."
"Well, that meant five more oranges for every ten shillings' worth."
Now, what price did Bill actually pay for the oranges? There is only one rate that will fit in with his statements.
Now, what price did Bill actually pay for the oranges? There is only one rate that matches his statements.
AGE AND KINSHIP PUZZLES.
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten."
—Psalm xc. 10.
"Our lifespan is 70 years."
—Psalm 90:10.
For centuries it has been a favourite method of propounding arithmetical puzzles to pose them in the form of questions as to the age of an individual. They generally lend themselves to very easy solution by the use of algebra, though often the difficulty lies in stating them Pg 7correctly. They may be made very complex and may demand considerable ingenuity, but no general laws can well be laid down for their solution. The solver must use his own sagacity. As for puzzles in relationship or kinship, it is quite curious how bewildering many people find these things. Even in ordinary conversation, some statement as to relationship, which is quite clear in the mind of the speaker, will immediately tie the brains of other people into knots. Such expressions as "He is my uncle's son-in-law's sister" convey absolutely nothing to some people without a detailed and laboured explanation. In such cases the best course is to sketch a brief genealogical table, when the eye comes immediately to the assistance of the brain. In these days, when we have a growing lack of respect for pedigrees, most people have got out of the habit of rapidly drawing such tables, which is to be regretted, as they would save a lot of time and brain racking on occasions.
For centuries, a popular way to present arithmetic puzzles has been to frame them as questions about someone's age. They usually have straightforward solutions using algebra, although the challenge often lies in phrasing them correctly. They can become quite complex and may require significant creativity, but there aren't any universal rules for solving them. The solver needs to rely on their own insight. When it comes to puzzles involving relationships, it's interesting how confusing many people find them. Even in casual conversation, statements about relationships that seem clear to the speaker can completely baffle others. Phrases like "He is my uncle's son-in-law's sister" mean nothing to some people unless they're given a detailed and tedious explanation. In those cases, the best approach is to create a simple family tree, where a visual aid helps clarify the situation. Nowadays, as we increasingly disregard family lines, most people have lost the habit of quickly sketching these trees, which is unfortunate because they could save a lot of time and mental effort in certain situations. Pg 7
Tommy: "How old are you, mamma?"
Tommy: "How old are you, mom?"
Mamma: "Let me think, Tommy. Well, our three ages add up to exactly seventy years."
Mamma: "Let me think, Tommy. Well, our three ages add up to exactly seventy years."
Tommy: "That's a lot, isn't it? And how old are you, papa?"
Tommy: "That's a lot, right? And how old are you, Dad?"
Papa: "Just six times as old as you, my son."
Papa: "I'm just six times older than you, my son."
Tommy: "Shall I ever be half as old as you, papa?"
Tommy: "Will I ever be half as old as you, Dad?"
Papa: "Yes, Tommy; and when that happens our three ages will add up to exactly twice as much as to-day."
Papa: "Yes, Tommy; and when that happens, the sum of our three ages will be exactly double what it is today."
Tommy: "And supposing I was born before you, papa; and supposing mamma had forgot all about it, and hadn't been at home when I came; and supposing——"
Tommy: "What if I was born before you, Dad; and what if Mom forgot all about it and wasn’t home when I showed up; and what if——"
Mamma: "Supposing, Tommy, we talk about bed. Come along, darling. You'll have a headache."
Mamma: "How about we talk about going to bed, Tommy? Come on, sweetie. You’re going to get a headache."
Now, if Tommy had been some years older he might have calculated the exact ages of his parents from the information they had given him. Can you find out the exact age of mamma?
Now, if Tommy had been a few years older, he might have figured out the exact ages of his parents based on the information they had shared with him. Can you determine mom's exact age?
"My husband's age," remarked a lady the other day, "is represented by the figures of my own age reversed. He is my senior, and the difference between our ages is one-eleventh of their sum."
"My husband's age," said a woman the other day, "is shown by my own age flipped around. He’s older than me, and the difference between our ages is one-eleventh of the total of our ages."
When the Smileys recently received a visit from the favourite uncle, the fond parents had all the five children brought into his presence. First came Billie and little Gertrude, and the uncle was informed that the boy was exactly twice as old as the girl. Then Henrietta arrived, and it was pointed out that the combined ages of herself and Gertrude equalled twice the age of Billie. Then Charlie came running in, and somebody remarked that now the combined ages of the two boys were exactly twice the combined ages of the two girls. The uncle was expressing his astonishment at these coincidences when Janet came in. "Ah! uncle," she exclaimed, "you have actually arrived on my twenty-first birthday!" To this Mr. Smiley added the final staggerer: "Yes, and now the combined ages of the three girls are exactly equal to twice the combined ages of the two boys." Can you give the age of each child?
When the Smileys recently had a visit from their favorite uncle, the proud parents brought all five kids to see him. First came Billie and little Gertrude, and the uncle was told that the boy was exactly twice as old as the girl. Then Henrietta showed up, and it was pointed out that the combined ages of her and Gertrude added up to double Billie's age. Next, Charlie came running in, and someone noted that the combined ages of the two boys were now exactly twice the combined ages of the two girls. The uncle was expressing his surprise at these coincidences when Janet came in. "Ah! Uncle," she exclaimed, "you’ve actually arrived on my twenty-first birthday!" To this, Mr. Smiley added the final surprise: "Yes, and now the combined ages of the three girls are exactly equal to twice the combined ages of the two boys." Can you give the age of each child?
Edwin: "Do you know, when the Timpkinses married eighteen years ago Timpkins was three times as old as his wife, and to-day he is just twice as old as she?"
Edwin: "Do you know that when the Timpkinses got married eighteen years ago, Timpkins was three times as old as his wife, and today he's just twice her age?"
Angelina: "Then how old was Mrs. Timpkins on the wedding day?"
Angelina: "So how old was Mrs. Timpkins on the wedding day?"
Can you answer Angelina's question?
Can you answer Angelina's question?
Mr. and Mrs. Jorkins have fifteen children, all born at intervals of one year and a half. Miss Ada Jorkins, the eldest, had an objection to state her age to the census man, but she admitted that she was just seven times older than little Johnnie, the youngest of all. What was Ada's age? Do not too hastily assume that you have solved this little poser. You may find that you have made a bad blunder!
Mr. and Mrs. Jorkins have fifteen kids, all born a year and a half apart. Miss Ada Jorkins, the oldest, was reluctant to tell the census guy her age, but she did mention that she was seven times older than little Johnnie, the youngest. So, how old is Ada? Don’t be too quick to think you've figured it out. You might realize you've made a big mistake!
"Mother, I wish you would give me a bicycle," said a girl of twelve the other day.
"Mom, I really wish you would get me a bicycle," said a twelve-year-old girl the other day.
"I do not think you are old enough yet, my dear," was the reply. "When I am only three times as old as you are you shall have one."
"I don't think you're old enough yet, my dear," was the reply. "When I'm just three times your age, you can have one."
Now, the mother's age is forty-five years. When may the young lady expect to receive her present?
Now, the mother is forty-five years old. When can the young lady expect to get her gift?
Marmaduke: "Do you know, dear, that in seven years' time our combined ages will be sixty-three years?"
Marmaduke: "Do you realize, dear, that in seven years our ages together will be sixty-three?"
Mary: "Is that really so? And yet it is a fact that when you were my present age you were twice as old as I was then. I worked it out last night."
Mary: "Is that really true? And yet it's a fact that when you were my age now, you were twice as old as I was back then. I figured it out last night."
Now, what are the ages of Mary and Marmaduke?
Now, how old are Mary and Marmaduke?
"Now, then, Tommy, how old is Rover?" Mildred's young man asked her brother.
"Now, Tommy, how old is Rover?" Mildred's boyfriend asked her brother.
"Well, five years ago," was the youngster's reply, "sister was four times older than the dog, but now she is only three times as old."
"Well, five years ago," the young one replied, "my sister was four times older than the dog, but now she is only three times as old."
Can you tell Rover's age?
Can you tell me Rover's age?
Tommy Smart was recently sent to a new school. On the first day of his arrival the teacher asked him his age, and this was his curious reply: "Well, you see, it is like this. At the time I was born—I forget the year—my only sister, Ann, happened to be just one-quarter the age Pg 8of mother, and she is now one-third the age of father." "That's all very well," said the teacher, "but what I want is not the age of your sister Ann, but your own age." "I was just coming to that," Tommy answered; "I am just a quarter of mother's present age, and in four years' time I shall be a quarter the age of father. Isn't that funny?"
Tommy Smart was recently sent to a new school. On his first day there, the teacher asked him how old he was, and this was his curious reply: "Well, you see, it's like this. When I was born—I can't remember the year—my only sister, Ann, was exactly a quarter of mom's age, and now she’s a third of dad's age." "That’s nice," said the teacher, "but what I need to know is your age, not your sister Ann's." "I was just getting to that," Tommy replied; "I’m currently a quarter of mom’s present age, and in four years, I’ll be a quarter of dad’s age. Isn't that funny?"
This was all the information that the teacher could get out of Tommy Smart. Could you have told, from these facts, what was his precise age? It is certainly a little puzzling.
This was everything the teacher could gather from Tommy Smart. Could you tell from these details what his exact age was? It’s definitely a bit confusing.
There were two families living next door to one another at Tooting Bec—the Jupps and the Simkins. The united ages of the four Jupps amounted to one hundred years, and the united ages of the Simkins also amounted to the same. It was found in the case of each family that the sum obtained by adding the squares of each of the children's ages to the square of the mother's age equalled the square of the father's age. In the case of the Jupps, however, Julia was one year older than her brother Joe, whereas Sophy Simkin was two years older than her brother Sammy. What was the age of each of the eight individuals?
There were two families living next to each other in Tooting Bec—the Jupps and the Simkins. The total ages of the four Jupps added up to one hundred years, and the total ages of the Simkins also came to the same. In both families, the sum of the squares of each child's age plus the square of the mother's age equaled the square of the father's age. However, in the Jupp family, Julia was one year older than her brother Joe, while Sophy Simkin was two years older than her brother Sammy. What were the ages of each of the eight family members?
Three boys were given a bag of nuts as a Christmas present, and it was agreed that they should be divided in proportion to their ages, which together amounted to 17½ years. Now the bag contained 770 nuts, and as often as Herbert took four Robert took three, and as often as Herbert took six Christopher took seven. The puzzle is to find out how many nuts each had, and what were the boys' respective ages.
Three boys received a bag of nuts as a Christmas gift, and it was decided that they should be split according to their ages, which added up to 17½ years. The bag had 770 nuts, and every time Herbert took four, Robert took three, and every time Herbert took six, Christopher took seven. The challenge is to figure out how many nuts each boy got and what their ages were.
Here is a funny little age problem, by the late Sam Loyd, which has been very popular in the United States. Can you unravel the mystery?
Here’s a quirky age riddle from the late Sam Loyd that has been quite popular in the United States. Can you figure it out?
The combined ages of Mary and Ann are forty-four years, and Mary is twice as old as Ann was when Mary was half as old as Ann will be when Ann is three times as old as Mary was when Mary was three times as old as Ann. How old is Mary? That is all, but can you work it out? If not, ask your friends to help you, and watch the shadow of bewilderment creep over their faces as they attempt to grip the intricacies of the question.
The ages of Mary and Ann add up to forty-four years, and Mary is twice as old as Ann was when Mary was half as old as Ann will be when Ann is three times as old as Mary was when Mary was three times as old as Ann. How old is Mary? That’s all, but can you figure it out? If not, ask your friends for help and watch as confusion spreads across their faces as they try to understand the complexities of the question.
"Speaking of relationships," said the Parson at a certain dinner-party, "our legislators are getting the marriage law into a frightful tangle, Here, for example, is a puzzling case that has come under my notice. Two brothers married two sisters. One man died and the other man's wife also died. Then the survivors married."
"Speaking of relationships," said the Parson at a dinner party, "our lawmakers are really messing up the marriage laws. Here's an example of a confusing case I've come across. Two brothers married two sisters. One brother passed away, and the other brother's wife also passed away. Then the two survivors got married."
"The man married his deceased wife's sister under the recent Act?" put in the Lawyer.
"The guy married his late wife's sister under the new law?" the Lawyer asked.
"Exactly. And therefore, under the civil law, he is legally married and his child is legitimate. But, you see, the man is the woman's deceased husband's brother, and therefore, also under the civil law, she is not married to him and her child is illegitimate."
"Exactly. So, according to civil law, he is legally married, and his child is legitimate. But, you see, the man is the brother of the woman's deceased husband, and because of that, under civil law, she is not married to him, and her child is illegitimate."
"He is married to her and she is not married to him!" said the Doctor.
"He is married to her, and she isn't married to him!" said the Doctor.
"Quite so. And the child is the legitimate son of his father, but the illegitimate son of his mother."
"Exactly. The child is the legitimate son of his father, but the illegitimate son of his mother."
"Undoubtedly 'the law is a hass,'" the Artist exclaimed, "if I may be permitted to say so," he added, with a bow to the Lawyer.
"Undoubtedly, 'the law is a hassle,'" the Artist exclaimed, "if I can say that," he added, bowing to the Lawyer.
"Certainly," was the reply. "We lawyers try our best to break in the beast to the service of man. Our legislators are responsible for the breed."
"Sure," was the reply. "We lawyers do our best to train the beast for the service of humanity. Our lawmakers are the ones responsible for creating this breed."
"And this reminds me," went on the Parson, "of a man in my parish who married the sister of his widow. This man——"
"And this reminds me," the Parson continued, "of a man in my parish who married his widow's sister. This man——"
"Stop a moment, sir," said the Professor. "Married the sister of his widow? Do you marry dead men in your parish?"
"Hold on a second, sir," said the Professor. "Married the sister of his widow? Do you marry dead people in your parish?"
"No; but I will explain that later. Well, this man has a sister of his own. Their names are Stephen Brown and Jane Brown. Last week a young fellow turned up whom Stephen introduced to me as his nephew. Naturally, I spoke of Jane as his aunt, but, to my astonishment, the youth corrected me, assuring me that, though he was the nephew of Stephen, he was not the nephew of Jane, the sister of Stephen. This perplexed me a good deal, but it is quite correct."
"No; but I'll explain that later. So, this guy has a sister. Their names are Stephen Brown and Jane Brown. Last week, a young guy showed up whom Stephen introduced to me as his nephew. Naturally, I referred to Jane as his aunt, but, to my surprise, the kid corrected me, insisting that, even though he was Stephen's nephew, he wasn't Jane's nephew, who is Stephen's sister. This confused me quite a bit, but it’s totally correct."
The Lawyer was the first to get at the heart of the mystery. What was his solution?
The Lawyer was the first to uncover the core of the mystery. What was his solution?
First Lady: "And was he related to you, dear?"
First Lady: "Was he related to you, dear?"
Second Lady: "Oh, yes. You see, that gentleman's mother was my mother's mother-in-law, but he is not on speaking terms with my papa."
Second Lady: "Oh, yes. You see, that man's mother was my mother's mother-in-law, but he's not on speaking terms with my dad."
First Lady: "Oh, indeed!" (But you could see that she was not much wiser.)
First Lady: "Oh, for sure!" (But it was clear she wasn't any wiser.)
How was the gentleman related to the Second Lady?
How was the man connected to the Second Lady?
A certain family party consisted of 1 grandfather, 1 grandmother, 2 fathers, 2 mothers, 4 children, 3 grandchildren, 1 brother, 2 sisters, 2 sons, 2 daughters, 1 father-in-law, 1 mother-in-law, and 1 daughter-in-law. Twenty-three people, you will say. No; there were only seven persons present. Can you show how this might be?
A certain family gathering included 1 grandfather, 1 grandmother, 2 fathers, 2 mothers, 4 children, 3 grandchildren, 1 brother, 2 sisters, 2 sons, 2 daughters, 1 father-in-law, 1 mother-in-law, and 1 daughter-in-law. You might think there were twenty-three people. But no, only seven individuals were present. Can you explain how this works?
Joseph Bloggs: "I can't follow it, my dear boy. It makes me dizzy!"
Joseph Bloggs: "I can't keep up with it, my dear boy. It's making me feel dizzy!"
John Snoggs: "It's very simple. Listen again! You happen to be my father's brother-in-law, my brother's father-in-law, and also my father-in-law's brother. You see, my father was——"
John Snoggs: "It's really straightforward. Listen once more! You are my uncle by marriage, my brother's dad, and also my father-in-law's brother. You see, my dad was——"
"Speaking of perplexities——" said Mr. Wilson, throwing down a magazine on the table in the commercial room of the Railway Hotel.
"Speaking of puzzles——" said Mr. Wilson, tossing a magazine onto the table in the commercial room of the Railway Hotel.
"Who was speaking of perplexities?" inquired Mr. Stubbs.
"Who was talking about confusions?" asked Mr. Stubbs.
"Well, then, reading about them, if you want to be exact—it just occurred to me that perhaps you three men may be interested in a little matter connected with myself."
"Well, then, reading about them, if you want to be precise—it just crossed my mind that maybe you three might be interested in a little issue related to me."
It was Christmas Eve, and the four commercial travellers were spending the holiday at Grassminster. Probably each suspected that the others had no homes, and perhaps each was conscious of the fact that he was in that predicament himself. In any case they seemed to be perfectly comfortable, and as they drew round the cheerful fire the conversation became general.
It was Christmas Eve, and the four salespeople were spending the holiday in Grassminster. Each of them probably thought that the others didn’t have homes, and maybe they all realized they were in the same situation. Regardless, they seemed to be completely at ease, and as they gathered around the warm fire, the conversation flowed freely.
"What is the difficulty?" asked Mr. Packhurst.
"What’s the problem?" asked Mr. Packhurst.
"There's no difficulty in the matter, when you rightly understand it. It is like this. A man named Parker had a flying-machine that would carry two. He was a venturesome sort of chap—reckless, I should call him—and he had some bother in finding a man willing to risk his life in making an ascent with him. However, an uncle of mine thought he would chance it, and one fine morning he took his seat in the machine and she started off well. When they were up about a thousand feet, my nephew suddenly——"
"There's no difficulty in this matter once you understand it correctly. It goes like this: A guy named Parker had a flying machine that could carry two people. He was quite the adventurous type—reckless, I’d say—and he had a hard time finding someone willing to risk their life to go up with him. However, one of my uncles decided to take the chance, and one nice morning he hopped into the machine, and it took off smoothly. When they were about a thousand feet in the air, my nephew suddenly——"
"Here, stop, Wilson! What was your nephew doing there? You said your uncle," interrupted Mr. Stubbs.
"Hey, hold on, Wilson! What was your nephew doing there? You mentioned your uncle," interrupted Mr. Stubbs.
"Did I? Well, it does not matter. My nephew suddenly turned to Parker and said that the engine wasn't running well, so Parker called out to my uncle——"
"Did I? Well, it doesn't matter. My nephew suddenly turned to Parker and said that the engine wasn't running well, so Parker called out to my uncle——"
"Look here," broke in Mr. Waterson, "we are getting mixed. Was it your uncle or your nephew? Let's have it one way or the other."
"Listen," interrupted Mr. Waterson, "we're getting confused. Was it your uncle or your nephew? Let's sort this out once and for all."
"What I said is quite right. Parker called out to my uncle to do something or other, when my nephew——"
"What I said is completely right. Parker shouted to my uncle to take some action, when my nephew——"
"There you are again, Wilson," cried Mr. Stubbs; "once for all, are we to understand that both your uncle and your nephew were on the machine?"
"There you are again, Wilson," shouted Mr. Stubbs. "So, just to be clear, are we supposed to believe that both your uncle and your nephew were on the machine?"
"Certainly. I thought I made that clear. Where was I? Well, my nephew shouted back to Parker——"
"Of course. I thought I made that clear. Where was I? Anyway, my nephew shouted back to Parker——"
"Phew! I'm sorry to interrupt you again, Wilson, but we can't get on like this. Is it true that the machine would only carry two?"
"Phew! Sorry to interrupt you again, Wilson, but we can't keep going like this. Is it true that the machine would only hold two?"
"Of course. I said at the start that it only carried two."
"Of course. I mentioned at the beginning that it only carried two."
"Then what in the name of aerostation do you mean by saying that there were three persons on board?" shouted Mr. Stubbs.
"Then what on earth do you mean by saying there were three people on board?" shouted Mr. Stubbs.
"Who said there were three?"
"Who said there were three?"
"You have told us that Parker, your uncle, and your nephew went up on this blessed flying-machine."
"You said that Parker, your uncle, and your nephew took a ride on this amazing flying machine."
"That's right."
"Exactly."
"And the thing would only carry two!"
"And it could only carry two!"
"Right again."
"Correct again."
"Wilson, I have known you for some time as a truthful man and a temperate man," said Mr. Stubbs, solemnly. "But I am afraid since you took up that new line of goods you have overworked yourself."
"Wilson, I’ve known you for a while as an honest and level-headed guy," Mr. Stubbs said seriously. "But I'm worried that since you started selling those new products, you’ve been pushing yourself too hard."
"Half a minute, Stubbs," interposed Mr. Waterson. "I see clearly where we all slipped a cog. Of course, Wilson, you meant us to understand that Parker is either your uncle or your nephew. Now we shall be all right if you will just tell us whether Parker is your uncle or nephew."
"Hold on a second, Stubbs," Mr. Waterson interrupted. "I see exactly where we got confused. Obviously, Wilson, you meant for us to understand that Parker is either your uncle or your nephew. We'll be fine if you just let us know if Parker is your uncle or nephew."
"He is no relation to me whatever."
"He is not related to me at all."
The three men sighed and looked anxiously at one another. Mr. Stubbs got up from his chair to reach the matches, Mr. Packhurst proceeded to wind up his watch, and Mr. Waterson took up the poker to attend to the fire. It was an awkward moment, for at the season of goodwill nobody wished to tell Mr. Wilson exactly what was in his mind.
The three men sighed and looked nervously at each other. Mr. Stubbs stood up from his chair to grab the matches, Mr. Packhurst began winding his watch, and Mr. Waterson picked up the poker to tend to the fire. It was an uncomfortable moment, as during this time of goodwill, no one wanted to tell Mr. Wilson exactly what they were thinking.
"It's curious," said Mr. Wilson, very deliberately, "and it's rather sad, how thick-headed some people are. You don't seem to grip the facts. It never seems to have occurred to either of you that my uncle and my nephew are one and the same man."
"It's strange," Mr. Wilson said thoughtfully, "and it's pretty sad how stubborn some people can be. You don't seem to understand the facts. It doesn't seem to have crossed your minds that my uncle and my nephew are actually the same person."
"What!" exclaimed all three together.
"What!" all three exclaimed together.
"Yes; David George Linklater is my uncle, and he is also my nephew. Consequently, I am both his uncle and nephew. Queer, isn't it? I'll explain how it comes about."
"Yes, David George Linklater is my uncle, and he’s also my nephew. So, I'm both his uncle and nephew. Strange, right? I’ll explain how that works."
Mr. Wilson put the case so very simply that the three men saw how it might happen without any marriage within the prohibited degrees. Perhaps the reader can work it out for himself.
Mr. Wilson explained the situation so clearly that the three men understood how it could happen without any marriage in the forbidden degrees. Maybe the reader can figure it out on their own.
CLOCK PUZZLES.
"Look at the clock!"
Ingoldsby Legends.
"Check the time!" *Ingoldsby Legends.*
In considering a few puzzles concerning clocks and watches, and the times recorded by their hands under given conditions, it is well that a particular convention should always be kept in mind. It is frequently the case that a solution requires the assumption that the hands can actually record a time involving a minute fraction of a second. Such a time, of course, cannot be really indicated. Is the puzzle, therefore, impossible of solution? The conclusion deduced from a logical syllogism depends for its truth on the two premises assumed, and it is the same in mathematics. Certain things are antecedently assumed, and the answer depends entirely on the truth of those assumptions.
When thinking about a few puzzles related to clocks and watches and the times shown by their hands under specific conditions, it's important to keep a certain convention in mind. Often, solving these puzzles requires us to assume that the hands can actually show a time that includes fractions of a second. However, such a time can't truly be displayed. Does this mean the puzzle can’t be solved? The conclusion drawn from a logical argument relies on the validity of the two initial assumptions, and the same applies to mathematics. Some things are taken as given, and the answer is completely dependent on the truth of those assumptions.
"If two horses," says Lagrange, "can pull a load of a certain weight, it is natural to suppose that four horses could pull a load of double that weight, six horses a load of three times that weight. Yet, strictly speaking, such is not the Pg 10case. For the inference is based on the assumption that the four horses pull alike in amount and direction, which in practice can scarcely ever be the case. It so happens that we are frequently led in our reckonings to results which diverge widely from reality. But the fault is not the fault of mathematics; for mathematics always gives back to us exactly what we have put into it. The ratio was constant according to that supposition. The result is founded upon that supposition. If the supposition is false the result is necessarily false."
"If two horses," says Lagrange, "can pull a load of a certain weight, it's reasonable to think that four horses could pull a load of double that weight, and six horses could pull a load of three times that weight. However, that's not exactly the case. This assumption relies on the idea that the four horses pull with the same strength and in the same direction, which rarely happens in real life. Often, our calculations lead us to results that are far from the truth. But this isn’t a failure of mathematics; mathematics only reflects what we input. The ratio was constant based on that assumption. The result depends on that assumption. If the assumption is wrong, then the result is automatically wrong."
If one man can reap a field in six days, we say two men will reap it in three days, and three men will do the work in two days. We here assume, as in the case of Lagrange's horses, that all the men are exactly equally capable of work. But we assume even more than this. For when three men get together they may waste time in gossip or play; or, on the other hand, a spirit of rivalry may spur them on to greater diligence. We may assume any conditions we like in a problem, provided they be clearly expressed and understood, and the answer will be in accordance with those conditions.
If one person can harvest a field in six days, we say two people will finish it in three days, and three people will complete the job in two days. Here, we assume, like in the case of Lagrange's horses, that all the workers have the same ability. But we assume even more than that. When three people come together, they might waste time chatting or having fun; on the other hand, a competitive spirit could push them to work harder. We can assume any conditions we want in a problem, as long as they are clearly stated and understood, and the answer will match those conditions.
"I say, Rackbrane, what is the time?" an acquaintance asked our friend the professor the other day. The answer was certainly curious.
"I said, Rackbrane, what time is it?" an acquaintance asked our friend the professor the other day. The answer was definitely interesting.
"If you add one quarter of the time from noon till now to half the time from now till noon to-morrow, you will get the time exactly."
"If you take a quarter of the time from noon until now and add it to half the time from now until noon tomorrow, you’ll get the exact time."
What was the time of day when the professor spoke?
What time of day did the professor speak?
How many minutes is it until six o'clock if fifty minutes ago it was four times as many minutes past three o'clock?
How many minutes until six o'clock if it was fifty minutes ago that it was four times as many minutes past three o'clock?
A friend pulled out his watch and said, "This watch of mine does not keep perfect time; I must have it seen to. I have noticed that the minute hand and the hour hand are exactly together every sixty-five minutes." Does that watch gain or lose, and how much per hour?
A friend took out his watch and said, "This watch of mine doesn’t keep perfect time; I need to get it fixed. I’ve noticed that the minute hand and the hour hand line up exactly every sixty-five minutes." Does that watch gain or lose time, and by how much per hour?
There was a great commotion in Lower Thames Street on the morning of January 12, 1887. When the early members of the staff arrived at Wapshaw's Wharf they found that the safe had been broken open, a considerable sum of money removed, and the offices left in great disorder. The night watchman was nowhere to be found, but nobody who had been acquainted with him for one moment suspected him to be guilty of the robbery. In this belief the proprietors were confirmed when, later in the day, they were informed that the poor fellow's body had been picked up by the River Police. Certain marks of violence pointed to the fact that he had been brutally attacked and thrown into the river. A watch found in his pocket had stopped, as is invariably the case in such circumstances, and this was a valuable clue to the time of the outrage. But a very stupid officer (and we invariably find one or two stupid individuals in the most intelligent bodies of men) had actually amused himself by turning the hands round and round, trying to set the watch going again. After he had been severely reprimanded for this serious indiscretion, he was asked whether he could remember the time that was indicated by the watch when found. He replied that he could not, but he recollected that the hour hand and minute hand were exactly together, one above the other, and the second hand had just passed the forty-ninth second. More than this he could not remember.
There was a huge commotion on Lower Thames Street on the morning of January 12, 1887. When the first staff members arrived at Wapshaw's Wharf, they discovered that the safe had been broken into, a significant amount of money was missing, and the offices were in disarray. The night watchman was nowhere to be found, but no one who had known him even for a moment believed he was guilty of the theft. The owners were convinced of his innocence when they later learned that the poor man's body had been recovered by the River Police. Signs of violence indicated that he had been brutally attacked and thrown into the river. A watch found in his pocket had stopped, which is always the case in such situations, and this was a useful clue to the timing of the crime. However, a rather foolish officer (and there’s usually at least one or two clueless individuals in any group of intelligent people) had entertained himself by spinning the watch hands, trying to get it working again. After being strongly reprimanded for this serious mistake, he was asked if he remembered the time indicated by the watch when it was found. He said he couldn’t recall, but he remembered that the hour hand and the minute hand were perfectly aligned, one above the other, and the second hand had just crossed the forty-ninth second. Beyond that, he couldn’t remember any more.
What was the exact time at which the watchman's watch stopped? The watch is, of course, assumed to have been an accurate one.
What was the exact time when the watchman's watch stopped? The watch is, of course, assumed to have been accurate.

The above clock face indicates a little before 42 minutes past 4. The hands will again point at exactly the same spots a little after 23 minutes past 8. In fact, the hands will have changed places. How many times do the hands of a clock change places between three o'clock p.m. and midnight? And out of all the pairs of times indicated by these changes, what is the exact time when the minute hand will be nearest to the point IX?
The clock face above shows just before 4:42. The hands will be in the same positions again just after 8:23. In fact, the hands will have swapped places. How many times do the hands of a clock swap places between 3:00 p.m. and midnight? And out of all the pairs of times marked by these swaps, what is the exact time when the minute hand will be closest to the IX position?
One of the big clocks in the Cogitators' Club was found the other night to have stopped just when, as will be seen in the illustration, the second hand was exactly midway between the other two hands. One of the members proposed to some of his friends that they should tell him the exact time when (if the clock had not Pg 11stopped) the second hand would next again have been midway between the minute hand and the hour hand. Can you find the correct time that it would happen?
One of the large clocks in the Cogitators' Club was found the other night to have stopped just when, as shown in the illustration, the second hand was exactly halfway between the other two hands. One of the members suggested to some friends that they should tell him the exact time when (if the clock hadn't Pg 11 stopped) the second hand would next be halfway between the minute hand and the hour hand. Can you figure out the exact time that will happen?


We have here a stop-watch with three hands. The second hand, which travels once round the face in a minute, is the one with the little ring at its end near the centre. Our dial indicates the exact time when its owner stopped the watch. You will notice that the three hands are nearly equidistant. The hour and minute hands point to spots that are exactly a third of the circumference apart, but the second hand is a little too advanced. An exact equidistance for the three hands is not possible. Now, we want to know what the time will be when the three hands are next at exactly the same distances as shown from one another. Can you state the time?
We have a stopwatch with three hands. The second hand, which makes a complete turn around the face in a minute, has a little ring at its end near the center. Our dial shows the exact time when the owner stopped the watch. You'll see that the three hands are nearly evenly spaced. The hour and minute hands point to positions that are exactly a third of the way around the dial from each other, but the second hand is slightly ahead. Perfectly even spacing for the three hands isn’t possible. Now, we want to figure out what time it will be when the three hands are next at exactly the same distances apart as they are now. Can you tell us the time?
On Friday, April 1, 1898, three new clocks were all set going precisely at the same time—twelve noon. At noon on the following day it was found that clock A had kept perfect time, that clock B had gained exactly one minute, and that clock C had lost exactly one minute. Now, supposing that the clocks B and C had not been regulated, but all three allowed to go on as they had begun, and that they maintained the same rates of progress without stopping, on what date and at what time of day would all three pairs of hands again point at the same moment at twelve o'clock?
On Friday, April 1, 1898, three new clocks were all started at exactly the same time—twelve noon. At noon the next day, it was discovered that clock A had kept perfect time, clock B had gained exactly one minute, and clock C had lost exactly one minute. Now, assuming that clocks B and C were not adjusted and all three continued to run as they started, maintaining their rates of timekeeping without stopping, on what date and at what time would all three clocks' hands align again at twelve o'clock?
A clock hangs on the wall of a railway station, 71 ft. 9 in. long and 10 ft. 4 in. high. Those are the dimensions of the wall, not of the clock! While waiting for a train we noticed that the hands of the clock were pointing in opposite directions, and were parallel to one of the diagonals of the wall. What was the exact time?
A clock is hanging on the wall of a train station, which is 71 ft. 9 in. long and 10 ft. 4 in. high. Those measurements are for the wall, not the clock! While we were waiting for a train, we saw that the hands of the clock were pointing in opposite directions and were parallel to one of the diagonals of the wall. What was the exact time?
A facetious individual who was taking a long walk in the country came upon a yokel sitting on a stile. As the gentleman was not quite sure of his road, he thought he would make inquiries of the local inhabitant; but at the first glance he jumped too hastily to the conclusion that he had dropped on the village idiot. He therefore decided to test the fellow's intelligence by first putting to him the simplest question he could think of, which was, "What day of the week is this, my good man?" The following is the smart answer that he received:—
A joking guy who was out for a long walk in the countryside stumbled upon a local man sitting on a fence. Since the gentleman wasn’t entirely sure of his way, he thought he’d ask the local for help; however, at first glance, he quickly jumped to the conclusion that he was dealing with the village idiot. So, he decided to test the guy's intelligence by asking the simplest question he could think of: "What day of the week is it, my good man?" Here's the clever answer he got:—
"When the day after to-morrow is yesterday, to-day will be as far from Sunday as to-day was from Sunday when the day before yesterday was to-morrow."
"When the day after tomorrow is yesterday, today will be as far from Sunday as today was from Sunday when the day before yesterday was tomorrow."
Can the reader say what day of the week it was? It is pretty evident that the countryman was not such a fool as he looked. The gentleman went on his road a puzzled but a wiser man.
Can the reader figure out what day of the week it was? It's pretty clear that the countryman wasn't as foolish as he appeared. The gentleman continued on his way, feeling both puzzled and a bit smarter.
LOCOMOTION AND SPEED PUZZLES.
"The race is not to the swift."—Ecclesiastes ix. II.
"The race isn't always won by the fastest."—Ecclesiastes ix. II.
In a recent motor ride it was found that we had gone at the rate of ten miles an hour, but we did the return journey over the same route, owing to the roads being more clear of traffic, at fifteen miles an hour. What was our average speed? Do not be too hasty in your answer to this simple little question, or it is pretty certain that you will be wrong.
In a recent car ride, we discovered that we were traveling at a speed of ten miles per hour. However, on the way back over the same route, we were able to go at fifteen miles per hour since the roads were less congested. What was our average speed? Don't rush to answer this seemingly simple question, or you're likely to get it wrong.
Two trains start at the same time, one from London to Liverpool, the other from Liverpool to London. If they arrive at their destinations one hour and four hours respectively after passing one another, how much faster is one train running than the other?
Two trains leave at the same time, one traveling from London to Liverpool and the other from Liverpool to London. If they both reach their destinations one hour and four hours after they meet, how much faster is one train compared to the other?
I set out the other day to ride in a motor-car from Acrefield to Butterford, but by mistake I took the road going via Cheesebury, which is nearer Acrefield than Butterford, and is twelve miles to the left of the direct road I should have travelled. After arriving at Butterford I found that I had gone thirty-five miles. What are the three distances between these villages, each being a whole number of miles? I may mention that the three roads are quite straight.
I set out the other day to drive from Acrefield to Butterford, but I accidentally took the road going via Cheesebury, which is closer to Acrefield than Butterford and is twelve miles to the left of the direct road I should have taken. After arriving at Butterford, I found that I had traveled thirty-five miles. What are the three distances between these villages, each being a whole number of miles? I should mention that the three roads are all straight.
"Speaking of odd figures," said a gentleman who occupies some post in a Government office, "one of the queerest characters I know is an old lame widow who climbs up a hill every week to draw her pension at the village post office. She crawls up at the rate of a mile and a half an hour and comes down at the rate of four and a half miles an hour, so that it takes her just six hours to make the double journey. Can any of you tell me how far it is from the bottom of the hill to the top?"
"Speaking of strange characters," said a guy who holds some position in a government office, "one of the weirdest people I know is an elderly, disabled widow who climbs a hill every week to collect her pension at the village post office. She crawls up at about a mile and a half an hour and comes down at four and a half miles an hour, so it takes her exactly six hours to make the round trip. Can any of you tell me how far it is from the bottom of the hill to the top?"

In the illustration we have a sketch of Sir Edwyn de Tudor going to rescue his lady-love, the fair Isabella, who was held a captive by a neighbouring wicked baron. Sir Edwyn calculated that if he rode fifteen miles an hour he would arrive at the castle an hour too soon, while if he rode ten miles an hour he would get there just an hour too late. Now, it was of the first importance that he should arrive at the exact time appointed, in order that the rescue that he had planned should be a success, and the time of the tryst was five o'clock, when the captive lady would be taking her afternoon tea. The puzzle is to discover exactly how far Sir Edwyn de Tudor had to ride.
In the illustration, we see a sketch of Sir Edwyn de Tudor on his way to rescue his beloved, the beautiful Isabella, who was held captive by a neighboring cruel baron. Sir Edwyn figured that if he rode at fifteen miles an hour, he would reach the castle an hour early, while if he rode at ten miles an hour, he would arrive just an hour late. It was crucial for him to arrive at the exact time planned for the rescue to succeed, and the meeting time was five o'clock when the captive lady would be having her afternoon tea. The challenge is to figure out exactly how far Sir Edwyn de Tudor had to ride.
The inhabitants of Slocomb-on-Sea were greatly excited over the visit of a certain flying man. All the town turned out to see the flight of the wonderful hydroplane, and, of course, Dobson and his family were there. Master Tommy was in good form, and informed his father that Englishmen made better airmen than Scotsmen Pg 13and Irishmen because they are not so heavy. "How do you make that out?" asked Mr. Dobson. "Well, you see," Tommy replied, "it is true that in Ireland there are men of Cork and in Scotland men of Ayr, which is better still, but in England there are lightermen." Unfortunately it had to be explained to Mrs. Dobson, and this took the edge off the thing. The hydroplane flight was from Slocomb to the neighbouring watering-place Poodleville—five miles distant. But there was a strong wind, which so helped the airman that he made the outward journey in the short time of ten minutes, though it took him an hour to get back to the starting point at Slocomb, with the wind dead against him. Now, how long would the ten miles have taken him if there had been a perfect calm? Of course, the hydroplane's engine worked uniformly throughout.
The people of Slocomb-on-Sea were really excited about the visit of a flying man. Everyone in town came out to watch the amazing hydroplane take off, and, of course, Dobson and his family were there. Young Tommy was in high spirits and told his dad that Englishmen made better pilots than Scotsmen and Irishmen because they’re lighter. "How do you figure that?" asked Mr. Dobson. "Well, you see," Tommy replied, "it’s true that in Ireland there are men from Cork and in Scotland there are men from Ayr, which is even better, but in England there are lightermen." Unfortunately, this had to be explained to Mrs. Dobson, which took away some of the fun. The hydroplane flew from Slocomb to the nearby vacation spot Poodleville—five miles away. However, there was a strong wind that helped the pilot, allowing him to complete the outward journey in just ten minutes, but it took him an hour to return to Slocomb against the wind. Now, how long would the ten miles have taken him if it had been perfectly calm? Of course, the hydroplane's engine ran steadily the whole time. Pg 13
During a visit to the seaside Tommy and Evangeline insisted on having a donkey race over the mile course on the sands. Mr. Dobson and some of his friends whom he had met on the beach acted as judges, but, as the donkeys were familiar acquaintances and declined to part company the whole way, a dead heat was unavoidable. However, the judges, being stationed at different points on the course, which was marked off in quarter-miles, noted the following results:—The first three-quarters were run in six and three-quarter minutes, the first half-mile took the same time as the second half, and the third quarter was run in exactly the same time as the last quarter. From these results Mr. Dobson amused himself in discovering just how long it took those two donkeys to run the whole mile. Can you give the answer?
During a trip to the beach, Tommy and Evangeline insisted on having a donkey race along the mile course on the sand. Mr. Dobson and some friends he met on the beach acted as judges, but since the donkeys were good buddies and refused to separate the whole way, a tie was inevitable. However, the judges, positioned at different points along the course marked off in quarter-mile sections, recorded the following results: The first three-quarters took six and three-quarter minutes, the first half-mile took the same time as the second half, and the third quarter was run in exactly the same time as the last quarter. Based on these results, Mr. Dobson entertained himself figuring out how long it took those two donkeys to complete the entire mile. Can you give the answer?
A man had a basket containing fifty potatoes. He proposed to his son, as a little recreation, that he should place these potatoes on the ground in a straight line. The distance between the first and second potatoes was to be one yard, between the second and third three yards, between the third and fourth five yards, between the fourth and fifth seven yards, and so on—an increase of two yards for every successive potato laid down. Then the boy was to pick them up and put them in the basket one at a time, the basket being placed beside the first potato. How far would the boy have to travel to accomplish the feat of picking them all up? We will not consider the journey involved in placing the potatoes, so that he starts from the basket with them all laid out.
A man had a basket with fifty potatoes. He suggested to his son, for a bit of fun, that he should arrange these potatoes on the ground in a straight line. The distance between the first and second potatoes would be one yard, between the second and third three yards, between the third and fourth five yards, between the fourth and fifth seven yards, and so on—increasing by two yards for each subsequent potato. Then the boy was to pick them up one by one and put them back in the basket, which was placed next to the first potato. How far would the boy have to travel to pick them all up? We won't consider the distance he traveled to lay down the potatoes, so he would start from the basket with them all already laid out.
At first sight you would hardly think there was matter for dispute in the question involved in the following little incident, yet it took the two persons concerned some little time to come to an agreement. Mr. Smithers hired a motor-car to take him from Addleford to Clinkerville and back again for £3. At Bakenham, just midway, he picked up an acquaintance, Mr. Tompkins, and agreed to take him on to Clinkerville and bring him back to Bakenham on the return journey. How much should he have charged the passenger? That is the question. What was a reasonable fare for Mr. Tompkins?
At first glance, you might not think there was anything to argue about in the following small incident, but the two people involved took some time to reach an agreement. Mr. Smithers rented a car to drive him from Addleford to Clinkerville and back for £3. In Bakenham, which was right in the middle, he picked up a friend, Mr. Tompkins, and agreed to take him to Clinkerville and bring him back to Bakenham on the way back. How much should he have charged the passenger? That's the question. What would be a fair fare for Mr. Tompkins?
DIGITAL PUZZLES.
"Nine worthies were they called."
DRYDEN: The Flower and the Leaf.
"They were referred to as the nine great figures."
DRYDEN: The Flower and the Leaf.
I give these puzzles, dealing with the nine digits, a class to themselves, because I have always thought that they deserve more consideration than they usually receive. Beyond the mere trick of "casting out nines," very little seems to be generally known of the laws involved in these problems, and yet an acquaintance with the properties of the digits often supplies, among other uses, a certain number of arithmetical checks that are of real value in the saving of labour. Let me give just one example—the first that occurs to me.
I categorize these puzzles involving the nine digits as a special group because I've always believed they deserve more attention than they typically get. Besides the simple trick of "casting out nines," not much is widely known about the rules behind these problems. However, understanding the properties of the digits can provide a variety of useful arithmetic checks that can really help save time and effort. Let me share just one example—the first one that comes to mind.
If the reader were required to determine whether or not 15,763,530,163,289 is a square number, how would he proceed? If the number had ended with a 2, 3, 7, or 8 in the digits place, of course he would know that it could not be a square, but there is nothing in its apparent form to prevent its being one. I suspect that in such a case he would set to work, with a sigh or a groan, at the laborious task of extracting the square root. Yet if he had given a little attention to the study of the digital properties of numbers, he would settle the question in this simple way. The sum of the digits is 59, the sum of which is 14, the sum of which is 5 (which I call the "digital root"), and therefore I know that the number cannot be a square, and for this reason. The digital root of successive square numbers from 1 upwards is always 1, 4, 7, or 9, and can never be anything else. In fact, the series, 1, 4, 9, 7, 7, 9, 4, 1, 9, is repeated into infinity. The analogous series for triangular numbers is 1, 3, 6, 1, 6, 3, 1, 9, 9. So here we have a similar negative check, for a number cannot be triangular (that is, (n²+n)/2) if its digital root be 2, 4, 5, 7, or 8.
If the reader needed to figure out whether 15,763,530,163,289 is a square number, how would they go about it? If the number ended with a 2, 3, 7, or 8, they would know right away that it couldn't be a square. However, there's nothing in its appearance that rules out the possibility. I suspect they would start the tedious task of extracting the square root with a sigh or groan. But if they had spent some time studying the digital properties of numbers, they could easily answer the question. The sum of the digits is 59, which adds up to 14, and then 5 (which I call the "digital root"). Therefore, I know that the number cannot be a square because the digital root of square numbers starting from 1 is always 1, 4, 7, or 9, and will never be anything else. In fact, the sequence 1, 4, 9, 7, 7, 9, 4, 1, 9 repeats infinitely. The corresponding series for triangular numbers is 1, 3, 6, 1, 6, 3, 1, 9, 9. So, this gives us another indication since a number can't be triangular (meaning (n²+n)/2) if its digital root is 2, 4, 5, 7, or 8.
A man bought an odd lot of wine in barrels and one barrel containing beer. These are shown in the illustration, marked with the number of gallons that each barrel contained. He sold a quantity of the wine to one man and twice the quantity to another, but kept the beer to himself. The puzzle is to point out which barrel contains beer. Can you say which one it is? Of course, the man sold the barrels just as he Pg 14bought them, without manipulating in any way the contents.
A man bought a strange assortment of barrels filled with wine and one barrel with beer. The illustration shows each barrel, labeled with the number of gallons it holds. He sold a certain amount of wine to one person and double that amount to another, but he kept the beer for himself. The challenge is to identify which barrel holds the beer. Can you figure it out? Obviously, the man sold the barrels exactly as he Pg 14bought them, without changing anything about the contents.


It will be seen in the diagram that we have so arranged the nine digits in a square that the number in the second row is twice that in the first row, and the number in the bottom row three times that in the top row. There are three other ways of arranging the digits so as to produce the same result. Can you find them?
It will be seen in the diagram that we have arranged the nine digits in a square so that the number in the second row is twice that of the first row, and the number in the bottom row is three times that of the top row. There are three other ways to arrange the digits to achieve the same result. Can you find them?
The odd digits, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, add up 25, while the even figures, 2, 4, 6, and 8, only add up 20. Arrange these figures so that the odd ones and the even ones add up alike. Complex and improper fractions and recurring decimals are not allowed.
The odd digits, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, sum up to 25, while the even digits, 2, 4, 6, and 8, only total 20. Organize these numbers so that the odd ones and the even ones add up the same. Complex and improper fractions and repeating decimals are not allowed.

A man had in his office three cupboards, each containing nine lockers, as shown in the diagram. He told his clerk to place a different one-figure number on each locker of cupboard A, and to do the same in the case of B, and of C. As we are here allowed to call nought a digit, and he was not prohibited from using nought as a number, he clearly had the option of omitting any one of ten digits from each cupboard.
A man had three cabinets in his office, each with nine lockers, as shown in the diagram. He instructed his clerk to put a different single-digit number on each locker of cabinet A, and to do the same for B and C. Since we can consider zero a digit and he wasn’t restricted from using zero as a number, he clearly had the choice to leave out any one of the ten digits from each cabinet.
Now, the employer did not say the lockers were to be numbered in any numerical order, and he was surprised to find, when the work was done, that the figures had apparently been mixed up indiscriminately. Calling upon his clerk for an explanation, the eccentric lad stated that the notion had occurred to him so to arrange the figures that in each case they formed a simple addition sum, the two upper rows of figures producing the sum in the lowest row. But the most surprising point was this: that he had so arranged them that the addition in A gave the smallest possible sum, that the addition in C gave the largest possible sum, and that all the nine digits in the three totals were different. The puzzle is to show how this could be done. No decimals are allowed and the nought may not appear in the hundreds place.
Now, the employer didn’t specify that the lockers needed to be numbered in any particular order, and he was surprised to see, once the job was finished, that the numbers seemed to be mixed up randomly. When he asked his clerk for an explanation, the quirky young man explained that he had the idea to arrange the numbers so that they formed simple addition problems, with the top two rows of numbers totaling the bottom row. But the most surprising part was that he arranged them so that the addition in A produced the smallest possible total, the addition in C resulted in the largest possible total, and all nine digits in the three totals were different. The challenge is to show how this could be done. No decimals are allowed and zero may not be in the hundreds place.
There appeared in "Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques" the following puzzle as a modification of one of my "Canterbury Puzzles." Arrange the nine digits in three groups of two, three, and four digits, so that the first two numbers when multiplied together make the third. Thus, 12 × 483 = 5,796. I now also propose to include the cases where there are one, four, and four digits, such as 4 × 1,738 = 6,952. Can you find all the possible solutions in both cases?
There appeared in "Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques" the following puzzle as a modification of one of my "Canterbury Puzzles." Arrange the nine digits into three groups of two, three, and four digits, so that the first two numbers, when multiplied together, equal the third. For example, 12 × 483 = 5,796. I also now propose to include cases where there are one, four, and four digits, such as 4 × 1,738 = 6,952. Can you find all the possible solutions in both scenarios?

I have nine counters, each bearing one of the nine digits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. I arranged them on the table in two groups, as shown in the illustration, so as to form two multiplication sums, and found that both sums gave the same product. You will find that 158 multiplied by 23 is 3,634, and that 79 multiplied by 46 is also 3,634. Now, the puzzle I propose is to rearrange the counters so as to get as large a product as possible. What is the best way of placing them? Remember both groups must multiply to the same amount, and there must be three counters multiplied by two in one case, and two multiplied by two counters in the other, just as at present.
I have nine counters, each showing one of the nine digits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. I arranged them on the table in two groups, as illustrated, to create two multiplication problems, and discovered that both problems resulted in the same product. You'll see that 158 multiplied by 23 equals 3,634, and that 79 multiplied by 46 also equals 3,634. Now, the challenge I present is to rearrange the counters to achieve the largest possible product. What’s the best way to position them? Keep in mind both groups must multiply to the same amount, with three counters multiplied by two in one case, and two multiplied by two counters in the other, just like it is now.
In this case we use the nought in addition to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The puzzle is, as in the last case, so to arrange the ten counters that the products of the two multiplications shall be the same, and you may here have one or more figures in the multiplier, as you choose. The above is a very easy feat; but it is also required to find the two arrangements giving pairs of the highest and lowest products possible. Of course every counter must be used, and the cipher may not be placed to the left of a row of figures where it would have no effect. Vulgar fractions or decimals are not allowed.
In this case, we include zero along with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The challenge is, similar to the previous one, to arrange the ten counters so that the results of the two multiplications are the same. You can choose to have one or more digits in the multiplier. This task is quite simple, but you also need to find the two arrangements that result in the highest and lowest products possible. Of course, every counter must be used, and zero cannot be placed at the beginning of a row of numbers where it wouldn't have any impact. Common fractions or decimals are not allowed.
Here is another entertaining problem with the nine digits, the nought being excluded. Using each figure once, and only once, we can form two multiplication sums that have the same product, and this may be done in many ways. For example, 7x658 and 14x329 contain all the digits once, and the product in each case is the same—4,606. Now, it will be seen that the sum of the digits in the product is 16, which is neither the highest nor the lowest sum so obtainable. Can you find the solution of the problem that gives the lowest possible sum of digits in the common product? Also that which gives the highest possible sum?
Here’s another fun challenge with the nine digits, excluding zero. By using each digit once and only once, we can create two multiplication equations that yield the same product, and there are many different ways to do this. For instance, 7 x 658 and 14 x 329 use all the digits once, and both products equal 4,606. You’ll notice that the sum of the digits in the product is 16, which isn’t the highest or lowest sum possible. Can you find the solution to the problem that results in the lowest possible sum of digits in the common product? And what about the solution that gives the highest possible sum?

The Pierrot in the illustration is standing in a posture that represents the sign of multiplication. He is indicating the peculiar fact that 15 multiplied by 93 produces exactly the same figures (1,395), differently arranged. The puzzle is to take any four digits you like (all different) and similarly arrange them so that the number formed on one side of the Pierrot when multiplied by the number on the other side shall produce the same figures. There are very few ways of doing it, and I shall give all the cases possible. Can you find them all? You are allowed to put two figures on each side of the Pierrot as in the example shown, or to place a single figure on one side and three figures on the other. If we only used three digits instead of four, the only possible ways are these: 3 multiplied by 51 equals 153, and 6 multiplied by 21 equals 126.
The Pierrot in the illustration is standing in a position that symbolizes multiplication. He’s pointing out the interesting fact that 15 times 93 gives the same digits (1,395), just arranged differently. The challenge is to pick any four different digits and arrange them so that the number on one side of the Pierrot, when multiplied by the number on the other side, gives the same digits. There are very few ways to achieve this, and I will provide all the possible cases. Can you find them all? You can use two digits on each side of the Pierrot, as shown in the example, or place one digit on one side and three digits on the other. If we only use three digits instead of four, the only solutions are: 3 times 51 equals 153, and 6 times 21 equals 126.
A London policeman one night saw two cabs drive off in opposite directions under suspicious circumstances. This officer was a particularly careful and wide-awake man, and he took out his pocket-book to make an entry of the numbers of the cabs, but discovered that he had lost his pencil. Luckily, however, he found a small piece of chalk, with which he marked the two numbers on the gateway of a wharf close by. When he returned to the same spot on his beat he stood and looked again at the numbers, and noticed this peculiarity, that all the nine digits (no nought) were used and that no figure was repeated, but that if he multiplied the two numbers together they again produced the nine digits, all once, and once only. When one of the clerks arrived at the wharf in the early morning, he observed the chalk marks and carefully rubbed them out. As the policeman could not remember them, certain mathematicians were then consulted as to whether there was any known method for discovering all the pairs of numbers that have the peculiarity that the officer had noticed; but they knew of none. The investigation, however, was interesting, and the following question out of many was proposed: What two numbers, containing together all the nine digits, will, when multiplied together, produce another number (the highest possible) containing also all the nine digits? The nought is not allowed anywhere.
One night, a London policeman noticed two cabs leave in different directions under suspicious circumstances. This officer was particularly careful and alert, so he pulled out his notebook to jot down the cab numbers, but realized he had lost his pencil. Fortunately, he found a small piece of chalk and marked the two numbers on the gate of a nearby wharf. When he returned to that spot later during his shift, he looked at the numbers again and noticed something interesting: all nine digits (no zeros) were used, none were repeated, and when he multiplied the two numbers together, they also produced all nine digits, each used once. When one of the wharf’s clerks arrived early in the morning, he saw the chalk marks and rubbed them out. Since the policeman couldn’t remember the numbers, some mathematicians were consulted to see if there was a known method for finding all pairs of numbers that had the same interesting property that the officer noticed, but they didn’t know of any. However, the inquiry was intriguing, and one of the many questions raised was: What two numbers that together use all nine digits will, when multiplied, produce another number (the highest possible) that also contains all nine digits? No zeros are allowed anywhere.
If I multiply 51,249,876 by 3 (thus using all the nine digits once, and once only), I get 153,749,628 (which again contains all the nine digits once). Similarly, if I multiply 16,583,742 by 9 the Pg 16result is 149,253,678, where in each case all the nine digits are used. Now, take 6 as your multiplier and try to arrange the remaining eight digits so as to produce by multiplication a number containing all nine once, and once only. You will find it far from easy, but it can be done.
If I multiply 51,249,876 by 3 (using all nine digits once, and only once), I get 153,749,628 (which also contains all nine digits once). Similarly, if I multiply 16,583,742 by 9 the Pg 16result is 149,253,678, where once again all nine digits are used. Now, take 6 as your multiplier and try to arrange the remaining eight digits to produce a number that contains all nine digits once, and only once. You’ll find it quite challenging, but it can be done.
Where a large number of workmen are employed on a building it is customary to provide every man with a little disc bearing his number. These are hung on a board by the men as they arrive, and serve as a check on punctuality. Now, I once noticed a foreman remove a number of these checks from his board and place them on a split-ring which he carried in his pocket. This at once gave me the idea for a good puzzle. In fact, I will confide to my readers that this is just how ideas for puzzles arise. You cannot really create an idea: it happens—and you have to be on the alert to seize it when it does so happen.
When a lot of workers are hired for a building project, it's common to give each person a small disc with their number on it. The workers hang these on a board as they arrive, and it helps keep track of their punctuality. One time, I saw a foreman take several of these discs off the board and put them on a keyring he had in his pocket. This immediately sparked an idea for a great puzzle. In fact, I'll share with my readers that this is exactly how ideas for puzzles come about. You can't really create an idea; it just occurs—and you need to be ready to grab it when it does.

It will be seen from the illustration that there are ten of these checks on a ring, numbered 1 to 9 and 0. The puzzle is to divide them into three groups without taking any off the ring, so that the first group multiplied by the second makes the third group. For example, we can divide them into the three groups, 2—8 9 7—1 5 4 6 3, by bringing the 6 and the 3 round to the 4, but unfortunately the first two when multiplied together do not make the third. Can you separate them correctly? Of course you may have as many of the checks as you like in any group. The puzzle calls for some ingenuity, unless you have the luck to hit on the answer by chance.
It can be seen from the illustration that there are ten of these checks on a ring, numbered 1 to 9 and 0. The challenge is to divide them into three groups without removing any from the ring, such that the first group multiplied by the second equals the third group. For example, we can divide them into the three groups, 2—8 9 7—1 5 4 6 3, by moving the 6 and the 3 around to the 4, but unfortunately, the first two when multiplied together do not equal the third. Can you separate them correctly? Of course, you can have as many of the checks as you want in any group. The puzzle requires some creativity, unless you happen to stumble upon the answer by luck.
It is another good puzzle so to arrange the nine digits (the nought excluded) into two groups so that one group when divided by the other produces a given number without remainder. For example, 1 3 4 5 8 divided by 6 7 2 9 gives 2. Can the reader find similar arrangements producing 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively? Also, can he find the pairs of smallest possible numbers in each case? Thus, 1 4 6 5 8 divided by 7 3 2 9 is just as correct for 2 as the other example we have given, but the numbers are higher.
It’s another interesting puzzle to divide the nine digits (excluding zero) into two groups so that one group, when divided by the other, results in a specified number without any remainder. For example, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 divided by 6, 7, 2, 9 equals 2. Can you find similar groupings that yield 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9? Additionally, can you identify the pairs of the smallest possible numbers for each case? For instance, 1, 4, 6, 5, 8 divided by 7, 3, 2, 9 is just as valid for 2 as the previous example, but the numbers are larger.
If I write the sum of money, £987, 5s. 4½d.., and add up the digits, they sum to 36. No digit has thus been used a second time in the amount or addition. This is the largest amount possible under the conditions. Now find the smallest possible amount, pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings being all represented. You need not use more of the nine digits than you choose, but no digit may be repeated throughout. The nought is not allowed.
If I write the total amount, £987, 5s. 4½d.., and add the digits together, they total 36. No digit has been used more than once in the amount or the addition. This is the largest amount possible under these conditions. Now find the smallest possible amount, with pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings all represented. You don’t have to use all nine digits, but no digit can be repeated. The zero is not allowed.
Can you write 100 in the form of a mixed number, using all the nine digits once, and only once? The late distinguished French mathematician, Edouard Lucas, found seven different ways of doing it, and expressed his doubts as to there being any other ways. As a matter of fact there are just eleven ways and no more. Here is one of them, 91 5742/638. Nine of the other ways have similarly two figures in the integral part of the number, but the eleventh expression has only one figure there. Can the reader find this last form?
Can you write 100 as a mixed number, using all nine digits once and only once? The late, distinguished French mathematician, Edouard Lucas, discovered seven different ways to do this and expressed doubts about there being any additional methods. In fact, there are exactly eleven ways, and no more. Here’s one of them, 91 5742/638. Nine of the other ways also have two digits in the whole number part, but the eleventh expression has only one digit there. Can the reader find this last form?
When I first published my solution to the last puzzle, I was led to attempt the expression of all numbers in turn up to 100 by a mixed fraction containing all the nine digits. Here are twelve numbers for the reader to try his hand at: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 27, 36, 40, 69, 72, 94. Use every one of the nine digits once, and only once, in every case.
When I first published my solution to the last puzzle, I decided to try expressing all the numbers up to 100 as mixed fractions using all nine digits. Here are twelve numbers for you to work on: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 27, 36, 40, 69, 72, 94. Use each of the nine digits once, and only once, for each number.
Here are the nine digits so arranged that they form four square numbers: 9, 81, 324, 576. Now, can you put them all together so as to form a single square number—(I) the smallest possible, and (II) the largest possible?
Here are the nine digits arranged in a way that they create four square numbers: 9, 81, 324, 576. Now, can you combine them all to form a single square number—(I) the smallest possible, and (II) the largest possible?
Can you find the largest possible number containing any nine of the ten digits (calling nought a digit) that can be divided by 11 without a remainder? Can you also find the smallest possible number produced in the same way that is divisible by 11? Here is an example, where the digit 5 has been omitted: 896743012. This number contains nine of the digits and is divisible by 11, but it is neither the largest nor the smallest number that will work.
Can you find the biggest number using any nine of the ten digits (including zero as a digit) that can be divided by 11 without leaving a remainder? Can you also find the smallest number created in the same way that is also divisible by 11? For example, if we leave out the digit 5: 896743012. This number uses nine of the digits and is divisible by 11, but it’s neither the largest nor the smallest number that fits the criteria.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 = 100.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 = 100.
It is required to place arithmetical signs between the nine figures so that they shall equal Pg 17100. Of course, you must not alter the present numerical arrangement of the figures. Can you give a correct solution that employs (1) the fewest possible signs, and (2) the fewest possible separate strokes or dots of the pen? That is, it is necessary to use as few signs as possible, and those signs should be of the simplest form. The signs of addition and multiplication (+ and ×) will thus count as two strokes, the sign of subtraction (-) as one stroke, the sign of division (÷) as three, and so on.
You need to place arithmetic signs between the nine digits so that they add up to Pg 17100. Of course, you can't change the current order of the digits. Can you provide a correct solution that uses (1) the fewest signs possible, and (2) the fewest separate strokes or dots with the pen? In other words, you should use as few signs as possible, and those signs should be the simplest. The addition and multiplication signs (+ and ×) will each count as two strokes, the subtraction sign (-) as one stroke, the division sign (÷) as three, and so on.

In the illustration Professor Rackbrane is seen demonstrating one of the little posers with which he is accustomed to entertain his class. He believes that by taking his pupils off the beaten tracks he is the better able to secure their attention, and to induce original and ingenious methods of thought. He has, it will be seen, just shown how four 5's may be written with simple arithmetical signs so as to represent 100. Every juvenile reader will see at a glance that his example is quite correct. Now, what he wants you to do is this: Arrange four 7's (neither more nor less) with arithmetical signs so that they shall represent 100. If he had said we were to use four 9's we might at once have written 999/9, but the four 7's call for rather more ingenuity. Can you discover the little trick?
In the illustration, Professor Rackbrane is seen showing one of the little puzzles he uses to engage his class. He believes that by taking his students off the usual paths, he can better capture their attention and encourage original and creative thinking. He has just demonstrated how four 5's can be arranged with simple math symbols to equal 100. Every young reader will immediately see that his example is correct. Now, what he wants you to do is this: Arrange four 7's (no more, no less) with math symbols so that they equal 100. If he had asked us to use four 9's, we could have easily written 999/9, but the four 7's require a bit more creativity. Can you figure out the trick?

I have a set of four dice, not marked with spots in the ordinary way, but with Arabic figures, as shown in the illustration. Each die, of course, bears the numbers 1 to 6. When put together they will form a good many, different numbers. As represented they make the number 1246. Now, if I make all the different four-figure numbers that are possible with these dice (never putting the same figure more than once in any number), what will they all add up to? You are allowed to turn the 6 upside down, so as to represent a 9. I do not ask, or expect, the reader to go to all the labour of writing out the full list of numbers and then adding them up. Life is not long enough for such wasted energy. Can you get at the answer in any other way?
I have a set of four dice, which aren’t marked with regular dots but have Arabic numbers, as shown in the illustration. Each die, of course, has the numbers 1 to 6. When combined, they can create quite a few different numbers. As shown, they form the number 1246. Now, if I create all the different four-digit numbers possible with these dice (without repeating any digit), what will their total be? You can flip the 6 upside down to make it a 9. I don’t expect the reader to go through the hassle of listing all the numbers and then adding them up. Life is too short for that kind of effort. Is there a quicker way to find the answer?
VARIOUS ARITHMETICAL AND ALGEBRAICAL PROBLEMS.
"Variety's the very spice of life,
That gives it all its flavour."
COWPER: The Task.
"Variety is the true spice of life,
That brings all its flavor.
COWPER: *The Task.*
A boy, recently home from school, wished to give his father an exhibition of his precocity. He pushed a large circular table into the corner of the room, as shown in the illustration, so that it touched both walls, and he then pointed to a spot of ink on the extreme edge.
A boy, just back from school, wanted to show off his talents to his dad. He shoved a big circular table into the corner of the room, as seen in the illustration, so that it was against both walls, and then he pointed to a spot of ink on the very edge.

"Here is a little puzzle for you, pater," said the youth. "That spot is exactly eight inches from one wall and nine inches from the other. Can you tell me the diameter of the table without measuring it?"
"Here's a little puzzle for you, Dad," said the young man. "That spot is exactly eight inches from one wall and nine inches from the other. Can you figure out the diameter of the table without measuring it?"
In a certain mixed school, where a special feature was made of the inculcation of good manners, they had a curious rule on assembling every morning. There were twice as many girls as boys. Every girl made a bow to every other girl, to every boy, and to the teacher. Every boy made a bow to every other boy, to every girl, and to the teacher. In all there were nine hundred bows made in that model academy every morning. Now, can you say exactly how many boys there were in the school? If you are not very careful, you are likely to get a good deal out in your calculation.
In a mixed school that focused on teaching good manners, they had a unique rule for starting each morning. There were twice as many girls as boys. Every girl bowed to every other girl, to every boy, and to the teacher. Every boy bowed to every other boy, to every girl, and to the teacher. In total, nine hundred bows were made in that exemplary academy every morning. Can you figure out exactly how many boys were in the school? If you're not careful, you might end up being quite far off in your calculation.
"A man I know," said Teddy Nicholson at a certain family party, "possesses a string of thirty-three pearls. The middle pearl is the largest and best of all, and the others are so selected and arranged that, starting from one end, each successive pearl is worth £100 more than the preceding one, right up to the big pearl. From the other end the pearls increase in value by £150 up to the large pearl. The whole string is worth £65,000. What is the value of that large pearl?"
"A man I know," said Teddy Nicholson at a family gathering, "has a necklace of thirty-three pearls. The middle pearl is the largest and the best, and the other pearls are arranged so that starting from one end, each pearl is worth £100 more than the one before it, all the way to the big pearl. From the other end, the pearls increase in value by £150 up to the big pearl. The entire necklace is worth £65,000. What is the value of that big pearl?"

"Pearls and other articles of clothing," said Uncle Walter, when the price of the precious gem had been discovered, "remind me of Adam and Eve. Authorities, you may not know, differ as to the number of apples that were eaten by Adam and Eve. It is the opinion of some that Eve 8 (ate) and Adam 2 (too), a total of 10 only. But certain mathematicians have figured it out differently, and hold that Eve 8 and Adam a total of 16. Yet the most recent investigators think the above figures entirely wrong, for if Eve 8 and Adam 8 2, the total must be 90."
"Pearls and other pieces of clothing," said Uncle Walter, after the price of the precious gem had been revealed, "remind me of Adam and Eve. You might not know this, but experts disagree about how many apples Adam and Eve actually ate. Some believe Eve had 8 and Adam had 2, making a total of just 10. However, certain mathematicians have figured it differently, arguing that Eve had 8 and Adam had a total of 16. But the latest researchers think those numbers are completely wrong because if Eve had 8 and Adam had 2, the total must be 90."
"Well," said Harry, "it seems to me that if there were giants in those days, probably Eve 8 1 and Adam 8 2, which would give a total of 163."
"Well," said Harry, "it looks to me like if there were giants back then, probably Eve 8 1 and Adam 8 2, which would add up to a total of 163."
"I am not at all satisfied," said Maud. "It seems to me that if Eve 8 1 and Adam 8 1 2, they together consumed 893."
"I’m not satisfied at all," said Maud. "It seems to me that if Eve 8 1 and Adam 8 1 2, they together consumed 893."
"I am sure you are all wrong," insisted Mr. Wilson, "for I consider that Eve 8 1 4 Adam, and Adam 8 1 2 4 Eve, so we get a total of 8,938."
"I’m pretty sure all of you are mistaken," insisted Mr. Wilson, "because I think Eve is 8 1 4 Adam, and Adam is 8 1 2 4 Eve, so that gives us a total of 8,938."
"But, look here," broke in Herbert. "If Eve 8 1 4 Adam and Adam 8 1 2 4 2 oblige Eve, surely the total must have been 82,056!"
"But, look here," interrupted Herbert. "If Eve 8 1 4 Adam and Adam 8 1 2 4 2 helps Eve, then the total has to be 82,056!"
At this point Uncle Walter suggested that they might let the matter rest. He declared it to be clearly what mathematicians call an indeterminate problem.
At this point, Uncle Walter suggested that they might leave the matter alone. He stated that it was clearly what mathematicians refer to as an indeterminate problem.
Professor Rackbrane, during one of his rambles, chanced to come upon a man digging a deep hole.
Professor Rackbrane, while out on one of his walks, happened to come across a man digging a deep hole.
"Good morning," he said. "How deep is that hole?"
"Good morning," he said. "How deep is that hole?"
"Guess," replied the labourer. "My height is exactly five feet ten inches."
"Guess," replied the worker. "I'm exactly five feet ten inches tall."
"How much deeper are you going?" said the professor.
"How much deeper are you going?" the professor asked.
"I am going twice as deep," was the answer, "and then my head will be twice as far below ground as it is now above ground."
"I’m going twice as deep," was the response, "and then my head will be twice as far below the ground as it is now above the ground."
Rackbrane now asks if you could tell how deep that hole would be when finished.
Rackbrane now asks if you could tell how deep that hole will be when it's done.
Farmer Tompkins had five trusses of hay, which he told his man Hodge to weigh before delivering them to a customer. The stupid fellow weighed them two at a time in all possible ways, and informed his master that the weights in pounds were 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, and 121. Now, how was Farmer Tompkins to find out from these figures how much every one of the five trusses weighed singly? The reader may at first think that he ought to be told "which pair is which pair," or something of that sort, but it is quite unnecessary. Can you give the five correct weights?
Farmer Tompkins had five bales of hay, and he told his worker Hodge to weigh them before delivering to a customer. The clumsy guy weighed them in pairs and came up with the following weights in pounds: 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, and 121. Now, how was Farmer Tompkins supposed to figure out how much each of the five bales weighed individually? At first, you might think he needs to know "which pair is which pair" or something similar, but that's not necessary at all. Can you determine the five correct weights?
Mr. Gubbins, a diligent man of business, was much inconvenienced by a London fog. The electric light happened to be out of order and he had to manage as best he could with two candles. His clerk assured him that though Pg 19both were of the same length one candle would burn for four hours and the other for five hours. After he had been working some time he put the candles out as the fog had lifted, and he then noticed that what remained of one candle was exactly four times the length of what was left of the other.
Mr. Gubbins, a hardworking businessman, was really bothered by a London fog. The electric light was out, so he had to make do with two candles. His clerk told him that even though Pg 19both candles were the same length, one would last for four hours and the other for five. After working for a while, he blew out the candles because the fog had cleared, and he then noticed that what was left of one candle was exactly four times the length of what was left of the other.
When he got home that night Mr. Gubbins, who liked a good puzzle, said to himself, "Of course it is possible to work out just how long those two candles were burning to-day. I'll have a shot at it." But he soon found himself in a worse fog than the atmospheric one. Could you have assisted him in his dilemma? How long were the candles burning?
When Mr. Gubbins got home that night, he, who enjoyed a good puzzle, said to himself, "Of course I can figure out how long those two candles were burning today. I'll give it a try." But he quickly realized he was in a worse mess than the one outside. Could you have helped him with his problem? How long were the candles burning?
Tim Murphy and Pat Donovan were engaged by the local authorities to paint the lamp-posts in a certain street. Tim, who was an early riser, arrived first on the job, and had painted three on the south side when Pat turned up and pointed out that Tim's contract was for the north side. So Tim started afresh on the north side and Pat continued on the south. When Pat had finished his side he went across the street and painted six posts for Tim, and then the job was finished. As there was an equal number of lamp-posts on each side of the street, the simple question is: Which man painted the more lamp-posts, and just how many more?
Tim Murphy and Pat Donovan were hired by the local authorities to paint the lamp posts on a certain street. Tim, being an early riser, arrived first and had painted three on the south side when Pat showed up and pointed out that Tim's contract was actually for the north side. So, Tim started over on the north side while Pat continued on the south. When Pat finished his side, he crossed the street and painted six posts for Tim, and then the job was done. Since there was an equal number of lamp posts on each side of the street, the simple question is: Which man painted more lamp posts, and by how much?
"Now, constable," said the defendant's counsel in cross-examination," you say that the prisoner was exactly twenty-seven steps ahead of you when you started to run after him?"
"Now, officer," said the defendant's lawyer during cross-examination, "you claim that the suspect was precisely twenty-seven steps ahead of you when you began to chase him?"
"Yes, sir."
"Yes, sir."
"And you swear that he takes eight steps to your five?"
"And you’re telling me he takes eight steps for every five you take?"
"That is so."
"That's true."
"Then I ask you, constable, as an intelligent man, to explain how you ever caught him, if that is the case?"
"Then I ask you, officer, as a smart person, to explain how you ever caught him, if that’s true?"
"Well, you see, I have got a longer stride. In fact, two of my steps are equal in length to five of the prisoner's. If you work it out, you will find that the number of steps I required would bring me exactly to the spot where I captured him."
"Well, you see, I have a longer stride. Actually, two of my steps are equal to five of the prisoner's. If you do the math, you'll see that the number of steps I took would lead me exactly to the spot where I caught him."
Here the foreman of the jury asked for a few minutes to figure out the number of steps the constable must have taken. Can you also say how many steps the officer needed to catch the thief?
Here, the jury's foreman requested a few minutes to calculate the number of steps the constable must have taken. Can you also tell me how many steps the officer needed to catch the thief?
Here is an easy problem for the novice. At the last election of the parish council of Tittlebury-in-the-Marsh there were twenty-three candidates for nine seats. Each voter was qualified to vote for nine of these candidates or for any less number. One of the electors wants to know in just how many different ways it was possible for him to vote.
Here is an easy problem for beginners. In the last election for the parish council of Tittlebury-in-the-Marsh, there were twenty-three candidates for nine seats. Each voter could vote for nine of these candidates or any fewer. One of the voters wants to know how many different ways he could have voted.
At the last Parliamentary election at Muddletown 5,473 votes were polled. The Liberal was elected by a majority of 18 over the Conservative, by 146 over the Independent, and by 575 over the Socialist. Can you give a simple rule for figuring out how many votes were polled for each candidate?
At the last Parliamentary election in Muddletown, 5,473 votes were cast. The Liberal candidate won by a margin of 18 votes over the Conservative, by 146 over the Independent, and by 575 over the Socialist. Can you give a simple method for calculating how many votes each candidate received?
At a recent secret meeting of Suffragists a serious difference of opinion arose. This led to a split, and a certain number left the meeting. "I had half a mind to go myself," said the chair-woman, "and if I had done so, two-thirds of us would have retired." "True," said another member; "but if I had persuaded my friends Mrs. Wild and Christine Armstrong to remain we should only have lost half our number." Can you tell how many were present at the meeting at the start?
At a recent secret meeting of Suffragists, a significant disagreement came up. This resulted in a split, causing some members to leave the meeting. "I almost left too," said the chairwoman, "and if I had, two-thirds of us would have walked out." "That's true," replied another member, "but if I had convinced my friends Mrs. Wild and Christine Armstrong to stay, we would have only lost half of our group." Can you figure out how many were at the meeting initially?
Last leap-year ladies lost no time in exercising the privilege of making proposals of marriage. If the figures that reached me from an occult source are correct, the following represents the state of affairs in this country.
Last leap year, women wasted no time using their right to propose marriage. If the information I received from a secret source is accurate, this reflects the current situation in the country.
A number of women proposed once each, of whom one-eighth were widows. In consequence, a number of men were to be married of whom one-eleventh were widowers. Of the proposals made to widowers, one-fifth were declined. All the widows were accepted. Thirty-five forty-fourths of the widows married bachelors. One thousand two hundred and twenty-one spinsters were declined by bachelors. The number of spinsters accepted by bachelors was seven times the number of widows accepted by bachelors. Those are all the particulars that I was able to obtain. Now, how many women proposed?
A number of women made proposals, and one-eighth of them were widows. As a result, a number of men were to get married, with one-eleventh of them being widowers. Out of the proposals made to widowers, one-fifth were turned down. All the widows were accepted. Thirty-five out of forty-four widows married bachelors. One thousand two hundred and twenty-one spinsters were rejected by bachelors. The number of spinsters accepted by bachelors was seven times the number of widows accepted by bachelors. Those are all the details I was able to gather. Now, how many women made proposals?
After dinner, the five boys of a household happened to find a parcel of sugar-plums. It was quite unexpected loot, and an exciting scramble ensued, the full details of which I will recount with accuracy, as it forms an interesting puzzle.
After dinner, the five boys in the house stumbled upon a package of sugar plums. It was completely unexpected loot, and an exciting scramble followed, the full details of which I will recount accurately, as it presents an interesting puzzle.
You see, Andrew managed to get possession of just two-thirds of the parcel of sugar-plums. Bob at once grabbed three-eighths of these, and Charlie managed to seize three-tenths also. Then young David dashed upon the scene, and captured all that Andrew had left, except one-seventh, which Edgar artfully secured for himself by a cunning trick. Now the fun began in real earnest, for Andrew and Charlie jointly set upon Bob, who stumbled against the fender and dropped half of all that he had, which were equally picked up by David and Edgar, who had crawled under a table and were waiting. Next, Bob sprang on Charlie from a chair, and upset all the latter's collection on to the floor. Of this prize Andrew got just a quarter, Bob Pg 20gathered up one-third, David got two-sevenths, while Charlie and Edgar divided equally what was left of that stock.
You see, Andrew managed to get hold of two-thirds of the parcel of candy. Bob quickly grabbed three-eighths of it, and Charlie managed to snatch up three-tenths too. Then young David burst onto the scene and took everything Andrew had left, except for one-seventh, which Edgar cleverly got for himself with a trick. Now the real fun began, as Andrew and Charlie teamed up against Bob, who stumbled against the fender and dropped half of what he had, which was quickly picked up by David and Edgar, who had crawled under a table and were waiting. Next, Bob jumped on Charlie from a chair and knocked all of Charlie's collection onto the floor. From that haul, Andrew got a quarter, Bob picked up a third, David took two-sevenths, while Charlie and Edgar split what was left evenly.

They were just thinking the fray was over when David suddenly struck out in two directions at once, upsetting three-quarters of what Bob and Andrew had last acquired. The two latter, with the greatest difficulty, recovered five-eighths of it in equal shares, but the three others each carried off one-fifth of the same. Every sugar-plum was now accounted for, and they called a truce, and divided equally amongst them the remainder of the parcel. What is the smallest number of sugar-plums there could have been at the start, and what proportion did each boy obtain?
They were just starting to think the fight was over when David suddenly attacked in two directions at once, scattering three-quarters of what Bob and Andrew had just gotten. The two of them managed to recover five-eighths of it with a lot of effort, but the three others each took one-fifth of the same. Now every sugar-plum was accounted for, and they called a truce, equally dividing the rest of the stash among them. What is the smallest number of sugar-plums there could have been at the start, and what proportion did each boy get?
The first English puzzlist whose name has come down to us was a Yorkshireman—no other than Alcuin, Abbot of Canterbury (A.D. 735-804). Here is a little puzzle from his works, which is at least interesting on account of its antiquity. "If 100 bushels of corn were distributed among 100 people in such a manner that each man received three bushels, each woman two, and each child half a bushel, how many men, women, and children were there?"
The first English puzzle maker whose name we know was a Yorkshireman—none other than Alcuin, Abbot of Canterbury (A.D. 735-804). Here’s a little puzzle from his works that's interesting mainly because of its age. "If 100 bushels of corn were shared among 100 people so that each man received three bushels, each woman two, and each child half a bushel, how many men, women, and children were there?"
Now, there are six different correct answers, if we exclude a case where there would be no women. But let us say that there were just five times as many women as men, then what is the correct solution?
Now, there are six different correct answers, assuming we exclude a scenario where there would be no women. But let's say there were just five times as many women as men; what would the correct solution be?
A farmer had a square cornfield. The corn was all ripe for reaping, and, as he was short of men, it was arranged that he and his son should share the work between them. The farmer first cut one rod wide all round the square, thus leaving a smaller square of standing corn in the middle of the field. "Now," he said to his son, "I have cut my half of the field, and you can do your share." The son was not quite satisfied as to the proposed division of labour, and as the village schoolmaster happened to be passing, he appealed to that person to decide the matter. He found the farmer was quite correct, provided there was no dispute as to the size of the field, and on this point they were agreed. Can you tell the area of the field, as that ingenious schoolmaster succeeded in doing?
A farmer had a square cornfield. The corn was all ready to be harvested, and since he didn’t have enough workers, it was decided that he and his son would split the work. The farmer first cut a strip one rod wide all around the square, leaving a smaller square of standing corn in the center of the field. "Now," he said to his son, "I've done my part of the field, so you can take care of yours." The son wasn’t entirely happy with how the work was divided, and when the village schoolmaster happened to walk by, he asked him to settle the issue. The schoolmaster found that the farmer was correct, as long as there was no argument about the size of the field, and they agreed on that point. Can you figure out the area of the field, just like that clever schoolmaster did?
A man left a hundred acres of land to be divided among his three sons—Alfred, Benjamin, and Charles—in the proportion of one-third, one-fourth, and one-fifth respectively. But Charles died. How was the land to be divided fairly between Alfred and Benjamin?
A man left a hundred acres of land to be divided among his three sons—Alfred, Benjamin, and Charles—in the proportions of one-third, one-fourth, and one-fifth respectively. But Charles died. How should the land be divided fairly between Alfred and Benjamin?

I had the other day in my possession a label bearing the number 3 0 2 5 in large figures. This got accidentally torn in half, so that 3 0 was on one piece and 2 5 on the other, as shown on the illustration. On looking at these pieces I began to make a calculation, scarcely conscious of what I was doing, when I discovered this little peculiarity. If we add the 3 and the 2 5 together and square the sum we get as the result the complete original number on the label! Thus, 30 added to 25 is 55, and 55 multiplied by 55 is 3025. Curious, is it not? Now, the puzzle is to find another number, composed of four figures, all different, which may be divided in the middle and produce the same result.
The other day, I had a label with the number 3025 printed in big digits. It accidentally got torn in half, so that "30" was on one piece and "25" on the other, as shown in the illustration. While looking at these pieces, I started to do some math almost without realizing it, and I noticed something interesting. If we add 3 and 25 together and then square the sum, we get back the original number on the label! So, 30 plus 25 equals 55, and 55 times 55 is 3025. Isn't that fascinating? Now, the challenge is to find another four-digit number with all different digits that can be split in the middle and yield the same result.
The number 48 has this peculiarity, that if you add 1 to it the result is a square number (49, the square of 7), and if you add 1 to its half, you also get a square number (25, the square of 5). Now, there is no limit to the numbers that have this peculiarity, and it is an interesting puzzle to find three more of them—the smallest possible numbers. What are they?
The number 48 has a unique quality: if you add 1 to it, you get a square number (49, which is 7 squared), and if you add 1 to half of it, you also get a square number (25, which is 5 squared). There are countless numbers that share this property, and it’s an intriguing challenge to find three more of them—the smallest possible numbers. What are they?
In a certain article a printer had to set up the figures 54 × 23, which, of course, means that the fourth power of 5 (625) is to be multiplied by the cube of 2 (8), the product of which is 5,000. But he printed 54 × 23 as 5 4 2 3, which is not correct. Can you place four digits in the manner shown, so that it will be equally correct if the printer sets it up aright or makes the same blunder?
In a certain article, a printer had to set up the figures 54 × 23, which means that the fourth power of 5 (625) should be multiplied by the cube of 2 (8), resulting in 5,000. However, he printed 54 × 23 as 5 4 2 3, which is incorrect. Can you arrange four digits in such a way that it remains correct whether the printer sets it up properly or makes the same mistake?
Mr. Jasper Bullyon was one of the very few misers who have ever been converted to a sense of their duty towards their less fortunate fellow-men. One eventful night he counted out his accumulated wealth, and resolved to distribute it amongst the deserving poor.
Mr. Jasper Bullyon was one of the very few misers who have ever come to realize their responsibility toward their less fortunate fellow human beings. One significant night, he counted out his hoarded wealth and decided to share it with those in need.
He found that if he gave away the same number of pounds every day in the year, he could exactly spread it over a twelvemonth without there being anything left over; but if he rested on the Sundays, and only gave away a fixed number of pounds every weekday, there would be one sovereign left over on New Year's Eve. Now, putting it at the lowest possible, what was the exact number of pounds that he had to distribute?
He discovered that if he gave away the same amount of pounds every day of the year, he could evenly distribute it over twelve months without any leftover. However, if he took Sundays off and only gave away a set amount each weekday, he'd have one sovereign left over by New Year's Eve. So, at the very least, what was the exact amount of pounds he needed to distribute?
Could any question be simpler? A sum of pounds divided by one number of days leaves no remainder, but divided by another number of days leaves a sovereign over. That is all; and yet, when you come to tackle this little question, you will be surprised that it can become so puzzling.
Could any question be simpler? A total amount of pounds divided by one number of days leaves no remainder, but when divided by another number of days, it results in an extra sovereign. That’s all; and yet, when you try to solve this simple question, you’ll be surprised at how puzzling it can get.
The practical usefulness of puzzles is a point that we are liable to overlook. Yet, as a matter of fact, I have from time to time received quite a large number of letters from individuals who have found that the mastering of some little principle upon which a puzzle was built has proved of considerable value to them in a most unexpected way. Indeed, it may be accepted as a good maxim that a puzzle is of little real value unless, as well as being amusing and perplexing, it conceals some instructive and possibly useful feature. It is, however, very curious how these little bits of acquired knowledge dovetail into the occasional requirements of everyday life, and equally curious to what strange and mysterious uses some of our readers seem to apply them. What, for example, can be the object of Mr. Wm. Oxley, who writes to me all the way from Iowa, in wishing to ascertain the dimensions of a field that he proposes to enclose, containing just as many acres as there shall be rails in the fence?
The practical usefulness of puzzles is something we often overlook. However, I've received a lot of letters from people who found that mastering a small principle behind a puzzle has been unexpectedly valuable to them. In fact, it's a good rule of thumb that a puzzle isn’t truly valuable unless it’s not only entertaining but also hides some informative and potentially useful aspect. It’s interesting how these little bits of knowledge fit into the random needs of everyday life, and it's also curious how some of our readers use them in surprising ways. For instance, what could Mr. Wm. Oxley, who writes to me from Iowa, possibly want to know the size of a field he plans to enclose, which has exactly as many acres as there will be rails in the fence?

The man wishes to fence in a perfectly square field which is to contain just as many acres as there are rails in the required fence. Each hurdle, or portion of fence, is seven rails high, and two lengths would extend one pole (16½ ft.): that is to say, there are fourteen rails to the pole, lineal measure. Now, what must be the size of the field?
The man wants to enclose a perfectly square field that will contain the same number of acres as there are rails in the fence he needs. Each section of the fence is seven rails high, and two lengths of it would cover one pole (16½ ft.): in other words, there are fourteen rails per pole, measured linearly. So, what should the size of the field be?

The puzzle is to place a different number in each of the ten squares so that the sum of the squares of any two adjacent numbers shall be equal to the sum of the squares of the two numbers diametrically opposite to them. The four numbers placed, as examples, must stand as they are. The square of 16 is 256, and the square of 2 is 4. Add these together, and the result is 260. Also—the square of 14 is 196, and the square of 8 is 64. These together also make 260. Now, in precisely the same way, B and C should be equal to G and H (the sum will not necessarily be 260), A and K to F and E, H and I to C and D, and so on, with any two adjoining squares in the circle.
The challenge is to put a different number in each of the ten squares so that the sum of the squares of any two adjacent numbers equals the sum of the squares of the two numbers directly across from them. The four numbers placed as examples must stay as they are. The square of 16 is 256, and the square of 2 is 4. If you add these together, you get 260. Also, the square of 14 is 196, and the square of 8 is 64. Combined, they also equal 260. Now, in the same way, B and C should equal G and H (the sum won't necessarily be 260), A and K should equal F and E, H and I should equal C and D, and so on, with any two adjacent squares in the circle.
All you have to do is to fill in the remaining six numbers. Fractions are not allowed, and I shall show that no number need contain more than two figures.
All you have to do is fill in the remaining six numbers. Fractions aren't allowed, and I'll show that no number needs to have more than two digits.
Professor Rackbrane was spending an evening with his old friends, Mr. and Mrs. Potts, and they engaged in some game (he does not say what game) of cards. The professor lost the first game, which resulted in doubling the money that both Mr. and Mrs. Potts had laid on the table. The second game was lost by Mrs. Potts, which doubled the money then held by her husband and the professor. Curiously enough, the third game was lost by Mr. Potts, and had the Pg 22effect of doubling the money then held by his wife and the professor. It was then found that each person had exactly the same money, but the professor had lost five shillings in the course of play. Now, the professor asks, what was the sum of money with which he sat down at the table? Can you tell him?
Professor Rackbrane was spending an evening with his old friends, Mr. and Mrs. Potts, and they were playing some card game (he doesn’t specify which one). The professor lost the first game, which doubled the money that both Mr. and Mrs. Potts had put on the table. In the second game, Mrs. Potts lost, which doubled the money that her husband and the professor had. Interestingly, Mr. Potts lost the third game, which ended up doubling the money that his wife and the professor had. In the end, they discovered that everyone had the same amount of money, but the professor had lost five shillings during the games. Now, the professor wants to know how much money he started with at the table. Can you help him?

Farmer Longmore had a curious aptitude for arithmetic, and was known in his district as the "mathematical farmer." The new vicar was not aware of this fact when, meeting his worthy parishioner one day in the lane, he asked him in the course of a short conversation, "Now, how many sheep have you altogether?" He was therefore rather surprised at Longmore's answer, which was as follows: "You can divide my sheep into two different parts, so that the difference between the two numbers is the same as the difference between their squares. Maybe, Mr. Parson, you will like to work out the little sum for yourself."
Farmer Longmore had a knack for math and was known in his area as the "math farmer." The new vicar didn’t know this when he ran into Longmore one day in the lane and asked him during a brief chat, "So, how many sheep do you have in total?" He was a bit taken aback by Longmore's reply, which was: "You can split my sheep into two groups, so the difference between the two numbers is the same as the difference between their squares. Maybe, Mr. Parson, you’d like to work out the little problem for yourself."
Can the reader say just how many sheep the farmer had? Supposing he had possessed only twenty sheep, and he divided them into the two parts 12 and 8. Now, the difference between their squares, 144 and 64, is 80. So that will not do, for 4 and 80 are certainly not the same. If you can find numbers that work out correctly, you will know exactly how many sheep Farmer Longmore owned.
Can the reader tell how many sheep the farmer had? Let’s say he had only twenty sheep, and he split them into two groups of 12 and 8. The difference between their squares, 144 and 64, is 80. That doesn’t work, since 4 and 80 are definitely not the same. If you can find numbers that work out correctly, you'll know exactly how many sheep Farmer Longmore owned.
Crooks, an inveterate gambler, at Goodwood recently said to a friend, "I'll bet you half the money in my pocket on the toss of a coin—heads I win, tails I lose." The coin was tossed and the money handed over. He repeated the offer again and again, each time betting half the money then in his possession. We are not told how long the game went on, or how many times the coin was tossed, but this we know, that the number of times that Crooks lost was exactly equal to the number of times that he won. Now, did he gain or lose by this little venture?
Crooks, a compulsive gambler, recently said to a friend at Goodwood, "I'll bet you half the money in my pocket on the toss of a coin—heads I win, tails I lose." The coin was tossed, and the money was handed over. He kept making the same offer over and over, each time betting half of what he had at that moment. We're not told how long the game lasted or how many times the coin was tossed, but we do know that the number of times Crooks lost was exactly the same as the number of times he won. So, did he come out ahead or behind from this little gamble?
Necessity is, indeed, the mother of invention. I was amused the other day in watching a boy who wanted to play see-saw and, in his failure to find another child to share the sport with him, had been driven back upon the ingenious resort of tying a number of bricks to one end of the plank to balance his weight at the other.
Necessity is truly the mother of invention. I was surprised the other day watching a boy who wanted to play on a see-saw and, when he couldn’t find another child to join him, cleverly decided to tie a bunch of bricks to one end of the plank to balance out his weight on the other side.
As a matter of fact, he just balanced against sixteen bricks, when these were fixed to the short end of plank, but if he fixed them to the long end of plank he only needed eleven as balance.
As a matter of fact, he just balanced against sixteen bricks when they were attached to the short end of the plank, but if he attached them to the long end of the plank, he only needed eleven for balance.
"A client of mine," said a lawyer, "was on the point of death when his wife was about to present him with a child. I drew up his will, in which he settled two-thirds of his estate upon his son (if it should happen to be a boy) and one-third on the mother. But if the child should be a girl, then two-thirds of the estate should go to the mother and one-third to the daughter. As a matter of fact, after his death twins were born—a boy and a girl. A very nice point then arose. How was the estate to be equitably divided among the three in the closest possible accordance with the spirit of the dead man's will?"
"A client of mine," said a lawyer, "was on the verge of death when his wife was about to have a baby. I prepared his will, in which he left two-thirds of his estate to his son (if it turned out to be a boy) and one-third to the mother. But if the child was a girl, then two-thirds of the estate would go to the mother and one-third to the daughter. As it turned out, after his death, twins were born—a boy and a girl. A very interesting question then arose. How should the estate be fairly divided among the three of them while staying as true as possible to the intentions of the deceased?"
"My property is exactly a mile square," said one landowner to another.
"My property is exactly a square mile," said one landowner to another.
"Curiously enough, mine is a square mile," was the reply.
"Interestingly enough, mine is a square mile," was the reply.
"Then there is no difference?"
"So there's no difference?"
Is this last statement correct?
Is this final statement correct?
Seven coal-miners took a holiday at the seaside during a big strike. Six of the party spent exactly half a sovereign each, but Bill Harris was more extravagant. Bill spent three shillings more than the average of the party. What was the actual amount of Bill's expenditure?
Seven coal miners took a vacation at the beach during a big strike. Six of the group spent exactly half a sovereign each, but Bill Harris was more extravagant. Bill spent three shillings more than the average of the group. What was the actual amount of Bill's spending?
If we number six cards 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, and arrange them on the table in this order:—
If we number six cards 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, and lay them out on the table in this order:—
1 4 2 8
5 7
1 4 2 8
5 7
We can demonstrate that in order to multiply by 3 all that is necessary is to remove the 1 to the other end of the row, and the thing is done. The answer is 428571. Can you find a number that, when multiplied by 3 and divided by 2, the answer will be the same as if we removed the first card (which in this case is to be a 3) From the beginning of the row to the end?
We can show that to multiply by 3, all you need to do is move the 1 to the other end of the row, and then it's done. The answer is 428571. Can you find a number that, when multiplied by 3 and divided by 2, gives the same result as if we moved the first card (which here is a 3) from the start of the row to the end?
Sometimes a very simple question in elementary arithmetic will cause a good deal of perplexity. For example, I want to divide the four numbers, 701, 1,059, 1,417, and 2,312, by the largest number possible that will leave the same remainder in every case. How am I to set to work Of course, by a laborious system of trial one can in time discover the answer, but there is quite a simple method of doing it if you can only find it.
Sometimes a very simple question in basic math can be quite confusing. For example, I want to divide the four numbers, 701, 1,059, 1,417, and 2,312, by the largest number possible that will leave the same remainder in each case. How do I go about this? Of course, with a tedious trial-and-error method, one can eventually find the answer, but there’s actually a straightforward way to do it if you can figure it out.
We possess three square boards. The surface of the first contains five square feet more than the second, and the second contains five square feet more than the third. Can you give exact measurements for the sides of the boards? If you can solve this little puzzle, then try to find three squares in arithmetical progression, with a common difference of 7 and also of 13.
We have three square boards. The surface area of the first board is five square feet larger than the second board, and the second board is five square feet larger than the third board. Can you provide the exact measurements for the sides of the boards? If you can solve this puzzle, then try to find three squares in arithmetic progression, with a common difference of 7 and also of 13.
All historians know that there is a great deal of mystery and uncertainty concerning the details of the ever-memorable battle on that fatal day, October 14, 1066. My puzzle deals with a curious passage in an ancient monkish chronicle that may never receive the attention that it deserves, and if I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of the document it will none the less serve to furnish us with a problem that can hardly fail to interest those of my readers who have arithmetical predilections. Here is the passage in question.
All historians know that there's a lot of mystery and uncertainty about the details of the unforgettable battle on that fateful day, October 14, 1066. My puzzle involves a strange excerpt from an old monk's chronicle that might never get the attention it deserves, and even if I can’t guarantee the document’s authenticity, it will still present us with a problem that will surely interest my readers who have a knack for math. Here is the passage in question.
"The men of Harold stood well together, as their wont was, and formed sixty and one squares, with a like number of men in every square thereof, and woe to the hardy Norman who ventured to enter their redoubts; for a single blow of a Saxon war-hatchet would break his lance and cut through his coat of mail.... When Harold threw himself into the fray the Saxons were one mighty square of men, shouting the battle-cries, 'Ut!' 'Olicrosse!' 'Godemitè!'"
"The men of Harold stood firm together, as they always did, and formed sixty-one squares, with an equal number of men in each square. Woe to any brave Norman who dared to enter their strongholds; for just one strike from a Saxon war axe would shatter his lance and slice through his armor.... When Harold charged into battle, the Saxons were one powerful square of men, shouting their battle cries, 'Ut!' 'Olicrosse!' 'Godemitè!'"
Now, I find that all the contemporary authorities agree that the Saxons did actually fight in this solid order. For example, in the "Carmen de Bello Hastingensi," a poem attributed to Guy, Bishop of Amiens, living at the time of the battle, we are told that "the Saxons stood fixed in a dense mass," and Henry of Huntingdon records that "they were like unto a castle, impenetrable to the Normans;" while Robert Wace, a century after, tells us the same thing. So in this respect my newly-discovered chronicle may not be greatly in error. But I have reason to believe that there is something wrong with the actual figures. Let the reader see what he can make of them.
Now, I find that all the modern experts agree that the Saxons really did fight in this solid formation. For instance, in the "Carmen de Bello Hastingensi," a poem credited to Guy, Bishop of Amiens, who lived at the time of the battle, it says that "the Saxons stood firm in a dense mass," and Henry of Huntingdon notes that "they were like a castle, impenetrable to the Normans," while Robert Wace, writing a century later, states the same thing. So, in this respect, my newly discovered chronicle may not be significantly incorrect. However, I have reason to think that there is something off with the actual numbers. Let the reader see what they can make of them.
The number of men would be sixty-one times a square number; but when Harold himself joined in the fray they were then able to form one large square. What is the smallest possible number of men there could have been?
The number of men would be sixty-one times a square number; but when Harold himself joined in, they were able to form one large square. What is the smallest possible number of men there could have been?
In order to make clear to the reader the simplicity of the question, I will give the lowest solutions in the case of 60 and 62, the numbers immediately preceding and following 61. They are 60 × 42 + 1 = 312, and 62 × 82 + 1 = 632. That is, 60 squares of 16 men each would be 960 men, and when Harold joined them they would be 961 in number, and so form a square with 31 men on every side. Similarly in the case of the figures I have given for 62. Now, find the lowest answer for 61.
To clarify the simplicity of the question for the reader, I'll provide the lowest solutions for 60 and 62, which are the numbers right before and after 61. They are 60 × 42 + 1 = 312, and 62 × 82 + 1 = 632. So, 60 squares of 16 men each would total 960 men, and when Harold joins them, there would be 961 in total, forming a square with 31 men on each side. The same applies to the figures I provided for 62. Now, find the lowest answer for 61.
An ancient sculptor was commissioned to supply two statues, each on a cubical pedestal. It is with these pedestals that we are concerned. They were of unequal sizes, as will be seen in the illustration, and when the time arrived for Pg 24payment a dispute arose as to whether the agreement was based on lineal or cubical measurement. But as soon as they came to measure the two pedestals the matter was at once settled, because, curiously enough, the number of lineal feet was exactly the same as the number of cubical feet. The puzzle is to find the dimensions for two pedestals having this peculiarity, in the smallest possible figures. You see, if the two pedestals, for example, measure respectively 3 ft. and 1 ft. on every side, then the lineal measurement would be 4 ft. and the cubical contents 28 ft., which are not the same, so these measurements will not do.
An ancient sculptor was hired to create two statues, each set on a cube-shaped pedestal. We are concerned with these pedestals. They were different sizes, as shown in the illustration, and when it was time for Pg 24payment, a disagreement came up about whether the agreement was based on linear or cubic measurements. However, when they started measuring the two pedestals, the issue was quickly resolved because, interestingly enough, the number of linear feet was exactly the same as the number of cubic feet. The challenge is to determine the dimensions of two pedestals that have this unique property, using the smallest possible numbers. For example, if the two pedestals measured 3 ft. and 1 ft. on each side, then the linear measurement would be 4 ft. and the cubic volume would be 28 ft., which are not the same, so those measurements won't work.

There once lived in a small town in New Castile a noted miser named Don Manuel Rodriguez. His love of money was only equalled by a strong passion for arithmetical problems. These puzzles usually dealt in some way or other with his accumulated treasure, and were propounded by him solely in order that he might have the pleasure of solving them himself. Unfortunately very few of them have survived, and when travelling through Spain, collecting material for a proposed work on "The Spanish Onion as a Cause of National Decadence," I only discovered a very few. One of these concerns the three boxes that appear in the accompanying authentic portrait.
There once lived in a small town in New Castile a well-known miser named Don Manuel Rodriguez. His love for money was only matched by a strong passion for math problems. These puzzles usually revolved around his accumulated wealth and he posed them solely for his own enjoyment in solving them. Unfortunately, very few of these puzzles have survived, and while traveling through Spain to gather material for a planned work titled "The Spanish Onion as a Cause of National Decline," I only found a handful. One of these relates to the three boxes shown in the accompanying authentic portrait.

Each box contained a different number of golden doubloons. The difference between the number of doubloons in the upper box and the number in the middle box was the same as the difference between the number in the middle box and the number in the bottom box. And if the contents of any two of the boxes were united they would form a square number. What is the smallest number of doubloons that there could have been in any one of the boxes?
Each box had a different number of gold doubloons. The difference between the number of doubloons in the top box and the middle box was the same as the difference between the number in the middle box and the bottom box. If the contents of any two boxes were combined, they would equal a square number. What is the smallest number of doubloons that could have been in any one of the boxes?
The following puzzle will illustrate the importance on occasions of being able to fix the minimum and maximum limits of a required number. This can very frequently be done. For example, it has not yet been ascertained in how many different ways the knight's tour can be performed on the chess board; but we know that it is fewer than the number of combinations of 168 things taken 63 at a time and is greater than 31,054,144—for the latter is the number of routes of a particular type. Or, to take a more familiar case, if you ask a man how many coins he has in his pocket, he may tell you that he has not the slightest idea. But on further questioning you will get out of him some such statement as the following: "Yes, I am positive that I have more than three coins, and equally certain that there are not so many as twenty-five." Now, the knowledge that a certain number lies between 2 and 12 in my puzzle will enable the solver to find the exact answer; without that information there would be an infinite number of answers, from which it would be impossible to select the correct one.
The following puzzle will show how important it can be to set minimum and maximum limits on a needed number. This can often be done. For instance, we still don’t know how many different ways the knight's tour can be carried out on a chessboard; however, we do know it’s less than the number of combinations of 168 items taken 63 at a time and greater than 31,054,144—since that’s the number of routes of a specific type. Or, in a more relatable example, if you ask someone how many coins they have in their pocket, they might say they have no idea. But with a little more probing, you might get a response like, "Yes, I’m sure I have more than three coins, but definitely not as many as twenty-five." Now, knowing that a certain number falls between 2 and 12 in my puzzle will help the solver find the exact answer; without that information, there would be an infinite number of answers, making it impossible to pick the right one.
This is another puzzle received from my friend Don Manuel Rodriguez, the cranky miser of New Castile. On New Year's Eve in 1879 he showed me nine treasure boxes, and after informing me that every box contained a square number of golden doubloons, and that the difference between the contents of A and B was the same as between B and C, D and E, E and F, G and H, or H and I, he requested me to tell him the number of coins in every one of the boxes. At first I thought this was impossible, as there would be an infinite number of different answers, but on consideration I found that this was not the case. I discovered that while every box contained coins, the contents of A, B, C inPg 25creased in weight in alphabetical order; so did D, E, F; and so did G, H, I; but D or E need not be heavier than C, nor G or H heavier than F. It was also perfectly certain that box A could not contain more than a dozen coins at the outside; there might not be half that number, but I was positive that there were not more than twelve. With this knowledge I was able to arrive at the correct answer.
This is another puzzle I got from my friend Don Manuel Rodriguez, the grumpy miser from New Castile. On New Year's Eve in 1879, he showed me nine treasure boxes and told me that each box held a square number of gold doubloons. He said that the difference between the amounts in boxes A and B was the same as between B and C, D and E, E and F, G and H, or H and I. He asked me to figure out how many coins were in each box. At first, I thought it was impossible since there could be countless different answers, but upon further thought, I realized that wasn't true. I found out that while each box contained coins, the amounts in boxes A, B, and C increased in alphabetical order; the same went for D, E, F; and G, H, I; but D or E didn't have to be heavier than C, nor G or H heavier than F. It was also clear that box A couldn't contain more than twelve coins at most; it might even have less than half that amount, but I was sure it wasn't more than twelve. With this information, I was able to find the correct answer.
In short, we have to discover nine square numbers such that A, B, C; and D, E, F; and G, H, I are three groups in arithmetical progression, the common difference being the same in each group, and A being less than 12. How many doubloons were there in every one of the nine boxes?
In short, we need to find nine square numbers such that A, B, C; D, E, F; and G, H, I form three groups in arithmetic progression, with the common difference being the same in each group, and A being less than 12. How many doubloons were there in each of the nine boxes?
The five Spanish brigands, Alfonso, Benito, Carlos, Diego, and Esteban, were counting their spoils after a raid, when it was found that they had captured altogether exactly 200 doubloons. One of the band pointed out that if Alfonso had twelve times as much, Benito three times as much, Carlos the same amount, Diego half as much, and Esteban one-third as much, they would still have altogether just 200 doubloons. How many doubloons had each?
The five Spanish bandits, Alfonso, Benito, Carlos, Diego, and Esteban, were counting their loot after a raid when they realized that they had captured a total of exactly 200 doubloons. One of the gang pointed out that if Alfonso had twelve times more, Benito three times more, Carlos the same amount, Diego half as much, and Esteban one-third as much, they would still have a total of just 200 doubloons. How many doubloons did each one have?
There are a good many equally correct answers to this question. Here is one of them:
There are quite a few equally valid answers to this question. Here’s one of them:
A | 6 | × | 12 | = | 72 |
B | 12 | × | 3 | = | 36 |
C | 17 | × | 1 | = | 17 |
D | 120 | × | ½ | = | 60 |
E | 45 | × | 1/3 | = | 15 |
200 | 200 |
The puzzle is to discover exactly how many different answers there are, it being understood that every man had something and that there is to be no fractional money—only doubloons in every case.
The challenge is to find out exactly how many different answers exist, knowing that each person had something and that there won't be any fractional money—only doubloons in every situation.
This problem, worded somewhat differently, was propounded by Tartaglia (died 1559), and he flattered himself that he had found one solution; but a French mathematician of note (M.A. Labosne), in a recent work, says that his readers will be astonished when he assures them that there are 6,639 different correct answers to the question. Is this so? How many answers are there?
This problem, phrased a bit differently, was presented by Tartaglia (who died in 1559), and he was quite pleased with himself for finding one solution; however, a well-known French mathematician (M.A. Labosne), in a recent publication, claims that his readers will be shocked when he tells them there are 6,639 different correct answers to the question. Is this true? How many answers are there?
A banker had a sporting customer who was always anxious to wager on anything. Hoping to cure him of his bad habit, he proposed as a wager that the customer would not be able to divide up the contents of a box containing only sixpences into an exact number of equal piles of sixpences. The banker was first to put in one or more sixpences (as many as he liked); then the customer was to put in one or more (but in his case not more than a pound in value), neither knowing what the other put in. Lastly, the customer was to transfer from the banker's counter to the box as many sixpences as the banker desired him to put in. The puzzle is to find how many sixpences the banker should first put in and how many he should ask the customer to transfer, so that he may have the best chance of winning.
A banker had a customer who loved to bet on anything. Wanting to help him with this bad habit, the banker suggested a bet about dividing the contents of a box that only held sixpences into an exact number of equal piles. The banker would go first and could put in any number of sixpences; then the customer would add some, but not more than a pound in total. Neither of them knew what the other added. Finally, the customer would take as many sixpences as the banker wanted him to from the banker's counter and put them into the box. The challenge is for the banker to figure out how many sixpences to start with and how many to ask the customer to transfer so he has the best chance of winning.
A stonemason once had a large number of cubic blocks of stone in his yard, all of exactly the same size. He had some very fanciful little ways, and one of his queer notions was to keep these blocks piled in cubical heaps, no two heaps containing the same number of blocks. He had discovered for himself (a fact that is well known to mathematicians) that if he took all the blocks contained in any number of heaps in regular order, beginning with the single cube, he could always arrange those on the ground so as to form a perfect square. This will be clear to the reader, because one block is a square, 1 + 8 = 9 is a square, 1 + 8 + 27 = 36 is a square, 1 + 8 + 27 + 64 = 100 is a square, and so on. In fact, the sum of any number of consecutive cubes, beginning always with 1, is in every case a square number.
A stonemason once had a lot of cubic stone blocks in his yard, all exactly the same size. He had some quirky habits, and one of his odd ideas was to keep these blocks stacked in cubic piles, with no two piles having the same number of blocks. He figured out for himself (a fact well known to mathematicians) that if he took all the blocks from any number of piles in a regular order, starting with the single cube, he could always arrange them on the ground to form a perfect square. This will be clear to the reader, because one block is a square, 1 + 8 = 9 is a square, 1 + 8 + 27 = 36 is a square, 1 + 8 + 27 + 64 = 100 is a square, and so on. In fact, the sum of any number of consecutive cubes, always starting with 1, is always a square number.
One day a gentleman entered the mason's yard and offered him a certain price if he would supply him with a consecutive number of these cubical heaps which should contain altogether a number of blocks that could be laid out to form a square, but the buyer insisted on more than three heaps and declined to take the single block because it contained a flaw. What was the smallest possible number of blocks of stone that the mason had to supply?
One day, a gentleman came into the mason's yard and offered him a certain price if he would provide a series of these cubical piles that would total a number of blocks that could be arranged to form a square, but the buyer insisted on more than three piles and refused to take the single block because it had a flaw. What was the smallest possible number of stone blocks that the mason needed to supply?
A certain Sultan wished to send into battle an army that could be formed into two perfect squares in twelve different ways. What is the smallest number of men of which that army could be composed? To make it clear to the novice, I will explain that if there were 130 men, they could be formed into two squares in only two different ways—81 and 49, or 121 and 9. Of course, all the men must be used on every occasion.
A certain Sultan wanted to send an army into battle that could be arranged into two perfect squares in twelve different ways. What is the smallest number of soldiers that this army could consist of? To clarify for beginners, I'll explain that if there were 130 soldiers, they could be arranged into two squares in only two different ways—81 and 49, or 121 and 9. Of course, all the soldiers must be used each time.
Certain numbers are called triangular, because if they are taken to represent counters or coins they may be laid out on the table so as to form triangles. The number 1 is always regarded as triangular, just as 1 is a square and a cube number. Place one counter on the table—that is, the first triangular number. Now place two more counters beneath it, and you have a triangle of three counters; therefore 3 is triangular. Next place a row of three more counters, and you have a triangle of six counters; therefore 6 is triangular. We see that every row of counters that we add, containing just one more counter than the row above it, makes a larger triangle.
Certain numbers are called triangular because they can be arranged as triangles if you use them as counters or coins. The number 1 is always considered triangular, just like it's also a square and a cube number. Place one counter on the table—that’s the first triangular number. Now place two more counters beneath it, and you have a triangle of three counters; thus, 3 is triangular. Next, add a row of three more counters, and you’ll have a triangle of six counters; therefore, 6 is triangular. We see that each row of counters we add, which has just one more counter than the row above it, creates a larger triangle.
Pg 26Now, half the sum of any number and its square is always a triangular number. Thus half of 2 + 22 = 3; half of 3 + 32 = 6; half of 4 + 42 = 10; half of 5 + 52= 15; and so on. So if we want to form a triangle with 8 counters on each side we shall require half of 8 + 82, or 36 counters. This is a pretty little property of numbers. Before going further, I will here say that if the reader refers to the "Stonemason's Problem" (No. 135) he will remember that the sum of any number of consecutive cubes beginning with 1 is always a square, and these form the series 12, 32, 62, 102, etc. It will now be understood when I say that one of the keys to the puzzle was the fact that these are always the squares of triangular numbers—that is, the squares of 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, etc., any of which numbers we have seen will form a triangle.
Pg 26Now, half the sum of any number and its square is always a triangular number. So, half of 2 + 22 = 3; half of 3 + 32 = 6; half of 4 + 42 = 10; half of 5 + 52 = 15; and so on. Therefore, if we want to form a triangle with 8 counters on each side, we’ll need half of 8 + 82, or 36 counters. This is a neat little property of numbers. Before we continue, I want to mention that if the reader checks the "Stonemason's Problem" (No. 135), they will recall that the sum of any number of consecutive cubes starting from 1 is always a square, forming the series 12, 32, 62, 102, etc. It will now be clear when I say that one of the keys to the puzzle was the fact that these are always the squares of triangular numbers—that is, the squares of 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, etc., which are all numbers we have seen that can form a triangle.
Every whole number is either triangular, or the sum of two triangular numbers or the sum of three triangular numbers. That is, if we take any number we choose we can always form one, two, or three triangles with them. The number 1 will obviously, and uniquely, only form one triangle; some numbers will only form two triangles (as 2, 4, 11, etc.); some numbers will only form three triangles (as 5, 8, 14, etc.). Then, again, some numbers will form both one and two triangles (as 6), others both one and three triangles (as 3 and 10), others both two and three triangles (as 7 and 9), while some numbers (like 21) will form one, two, or three triangles, as we desire. Now for a little puzzle in triangular numbers.
Every whole number is either triangular, or it can be made by adding two triangular numbers, or by adding three triangular numbers. Basically, for any number you pick, you can always create one, two, or three triangles with it. The number 1 will clearly and uniquely create just one triangle; some numbers can create only two triangles (like 2, 4, 11, etc.); some numbers can create only three triangles (like 5, 8, 14, etc.). Additionally, some numbers can create both one and two triangles (like 6), others can create both one and three triangles (like 3 and 10), others can create both two and three triangles (like 7 and 9), while some numbers (like 21) can create one, two, or three triangles, depending on what we want. Now for a little puzzle with triangular numbers.
Sandy McAllister, of Aberdeen, practised strict domestic economy, and was anxious to train his good wife in his own habits of thrift. He told her last New Year's Eve that when she had saved so many sovereigns that she could lay them all out on the table so as to form a perfect square, or a perfect triangle, or two triangles, or three triangles, just as he might choose to ask he would add five pounds to her treasure. Soon she went to her husband with a little bag of £36 in sovereigns and claimed her reward. It will be found that the thirty-six coins will form a square (with side 6), that they will form a single triangle (with side 8), that they will form two triangles (with sides 5 and 6), and that they will form three triangles (with sides 3, 5, and 5). In each of the four cases all the thirty-six coins are used, as required, and Sandy therefore made his wife the promised present like an honest man.
Sandy McAllister from Aberdeen was very frugal and wanted to teach his wife to be just as thrifty. On New Year's Eve, he told her that when she saved enough sovereigns to arrange them on the table into a perfect square, a perfect triangle, two triangles, or three triangles, depending on what he asked, he would add five pounds to her savings. Soon after, she approached him with a small bag containing £36 in sovereigns, asking for her reward. It turned out that the thirty-six coins could indeed form a square (with a side of 6), a single triangle (with a side of 8), two triangles (with sides of 5 and 6), and three triangles (with sides of 3, 5, and 5). In each of these four cases, all thirty-six coins were used as required, so Sandy honored his promise and gave his wife the reward.
The Scotsman then undertook to extend his promise for five more years, so that if next year the increased number of sovereigns that she has saved can be laid out in the same four different ways she will receive a second present; if she succeeds in the following year she will get a third present, and so on until she has earned six presents in all. Now, how many sovereigns must she put together before she can win the sixth present?
The Scotsman then agreed to extend his promise for another five years, so that if next year the increased number of sovereigns she has saved can be arranged in the same four different ways, she will receive a second gift; if she succeeds the following year, she will get a third gift, and so on until she has earned a total of six gifts. Now, how many sovereigns does she need to gather before she can win the sixth gift?
What you have to do is to find five numbers, the smallest possible, higher than 36, that can be displayed in the four ways—to form a square, to form a triangle, to form two triangles, and to form three triangles. The highest of your five numbers will be your answer.
What you need to do is find five numbers, the smallest possible, greater than 36, that can be displayed in four ways—to form a square, to form a triangle, to form two triangles, and to form three triangles. The largest of your five numbers will be your answer.

"All cannon-balls are to be piled in square pyramids," was the order issued to the regiment. This was done. Then came the further order, "All pyramids are to contain a square number of balls." Whereupon the trouble arose. "It can't be done," said the major. "Look at this pyramid, for example; there are sixteen balls at the base, then nine, then four, then one at the top, making thirty balls in all. But there must be six more balls, or five fewer, to make a square number." "It must be done," insisted the general. "All you have to do is to put the right number of balls in your pyramids." "I've got it!" said a lieutenant, the mathematical genius of the regiment. "Lay the balls out singly." "Bosh!" exclaimed the general. "You can't pile one ball into a pyramid!" Is it really possible to obey both orders?
"All cannonballs need to be stacked in square pyramids," was the order given to the regiment. They complied. Then came the next order, "All pyramids must contain a square number of balls." That's when the problems started. "It can't be done," said the major. "Look at this pyramid; there are sixteen balls at the base, then nine, then four, and one at the top, totaling thirty balls. But we need six more balls or five fewer to make a square number." "It has to be done," insisted the general. "All you have to do is put the right number of balls in your pyramids." "I've got it!" said a lieutenant, the math whiz of the regiment. "Just lay the balls out one by one." "Nonsense!" shouted the general. "You can't stack one ball into a pyramid!" Is it really possible to follow both orders?
I wonder how many of my readers are acquainted with the puzzle of the "Dutchmen's Wives"—in which you have to determine the names of three men's wives, or, rather, which wife belongs to each husband. Some thirty years ago it was "going the rounds," as something quite new, but I recently discovered it in the Ladies' Diary for 1739-40, so it was clearly familiar to the fair sex over one hundred and seventy years ago. How many of our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and aunts could solve the puzzle to-day? A far greater proportion than then, let us hope.
I wonder how many of my readers are familiar with the puzzle of the "Dutchmen's Wives"—where you have to figure out the names of three men’s wives, or rather, which wife belongs to each husband. About thirty years ago, it was trending as something brand new, but I recently found it in the Ladies' Diary from 1739-40, so it was clearly known to women more than one hundred and seventy years ago. How many of our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and aunts could solve the puzzle today? Hopefully, a much larger number than back then.
Three Dutchmen, named Hendrick, Elas, and Cornelius, and their wives, Gurtrün, Katrün, and Anna, purchase hogs. Each buys as many as he (or she) gives shillings for one. Each husband pays altogether three guineas more than his wife. Hendrick buys twenty-three more hogs than Katrün, and Elas eleven more Pg 27than Gurtrün. Now, what was the name of each man's wife?
Three Dutchmen named Hendrick, Elas, and Cornelius, along with their wives Gurtrün, Katrün, and Anna, buy hogs. Each one buys as many hogs as the number of shillings they pay for one. Each husband spends a total of three guineas more than his wife. Hendrick buys twenty-three more hogs than Katrün, and Elas buys eleven more than Gurtrün. Now, what were the names of each man's wife?

This puzzle closely resembles the last one, my remarks on the solution of which the reader may like to apply in another case. It was recently submitted to a Sydney evening newspaper that indulges in "intellect sharpeners," but was rejected with the remark that it is childish and that they only published problems capable of solution! Five ladies, accompanied by their daughters, bought cloth at the same shop. Each of the ten paid as many farthings per foot as she bought feet, and each mother spent 8s. 5¼d. more than her daughter. Mrs. Robinson spent 6s. more than Mrs. Evans, who spent about a quarter as much as Mrs. Jones. Mrs. Smith spent most of all. Mrs. Brown bought 21 yards more than Bessie—one of the girls. Annie bought 16 yards more than Mary and spent £3, 0s. 8d. more than Emily. The Christian name of the other girl was Ada. Now, what was her surname?
This puzzle is really similar to the last one, and the reader might want to consider my comments on its solution for another situation. It was recently sent to a Sydney evening newspaper that features "intellect sharpeners," but they rejected it, saying it's childish and that they only publish problems that can be solved! Five women, along with their daughters, bought fabric at the same store. Each of the ten paid as many pennies per yard as they bought yards, and each mother spent 8s. 5¼d. more than her daughter. Mrs. Robinson spent 6s. more than Mrs. Evans, who spent about a quarter of what Mrs. Jones did. Mrs. Smith spent the most. Mrs. Brown bought 21 yards more than Bessie—one of the girls. Annie bought 16 yards more than Mary and spent £3, 0s. 8d. more than Emily. The first name of the other girl was Ada. Now, what was her last name?
Here is an amusing little case of marketing which, although it deals with a good many items of money, leads up to a question of a totally different character. Four married couples went into their village on a recent Saturday night to do a little marketing. They had to be very economical, for among them they only possessed forty shilling coins. The fact is, Ann spent 1s., Mary spent 2s., Jane spent 3s., and Kate spent 4s. The men were rather more extravagant than their wives, for Ned Smith spent as much as his wife, Tom Brown twice as much as his wife, Bill Jones three times as much as his wife, and Jack Robinson four times as much as his wife. On the way home somebody suggested that they should divide what coin they had left equally among them. This was done, and the puzzling question is simply this: What was the surname of each woman? Can you pair off the four couples?
Here’s a funny little marketing case that, while it involves quite a bit of money, leads to a completely different kind of question. Four married couples went into their village on a recent Saturday night to do some shopping. They had to be very frugal, as among them they only had forty shilling coins. So, Ann spent 1s., Mary spent 2s., Jane spent 3s., and Kate spent 4s. The guys were a bit more lavish than their wives; Ned Smith spent as much as his wife, Tom Brown spent twice as much as his wife, Bill Jones spent three times as much as his wife, and Jack Robinson spent four times as much as his wife. On the way home, someone suggested they divide the remaining coins equally among them. This was done, and the puzzling question is simply this: What was the last name of each woman? Can you match the four couples?
GEOMETRICAL PROBLEMS.
"God geometrizes continually."
PLATO.
"God is always creating order." PLATO.
"There is no study," said Augustus de Morgan, "which presents so simple a beginning as that of geometry; there is none in which difficulties grow more rapidly as we proceed." This will be found when the reader comes to consider the following puzzles, though they are not arranged in strict order of difficulty. And the fact that they have interested and given pleasure to man for untold ages is no doubt due in some measure to the appeal they make to the eye as well as to the brain. Sometimes an algebraical formula or theorem seems to give pleasure to the mathematician's eye, but it is probably only an intellectual pleasure. But there can be no doubt that in the case of certain geometrical problems, notably dissection or superposition puzzles, the æsthetic faculty in man contributes to the delight. For example, there are probably few readers who will examine the various cuttings of the Greek cross in the following pages without being in some degree stirred by a sense of beauty. Law and order in Nature are always pleasing to contemplate, but when they come under the very eye they seem to make a specially strong appeal. Even the person with no geometrical knowledge whatever is induced after the inspection of such things to exclaim, "How very pretty!" In fact, I have known more than one person led on to a study of geometry by the fascination of cutting-out puzzles. I have, therefore, thought it well to keep these dissection puzzles distinct from the geometrical problems on more general lines.
"There is no study," said Augustus de Morgan, "that has such a simple starting point as geometry; yet none has challenges that escalate more quickly as we progress." This will become clear when the reader considers the following puzzles, although they are not organized strictly by difficulty. The fact that these puzzles have fascinated and entertained people for countless ages is likely due, in part, to their appeal to both the eye and the mind. Sometimes an algebraic formula or theorem seems to provide pleasure for the mathematician’s eye, but it’s probably more of an intellectual enjoyment. However, there’s no doubt that certain geometric problems, especially dissection or superposition puzzles, engage the aesthetic sense in people, adding to their delight. For instance, there are likely very few readers who will look at the various cuts of the Greek cross in the following pages without feeling some sense of beauty. The patterns and order found in nature are always satisfying to observe, but they seem to resonate even more strongly when viewed up close. Even someone with no geometric knowledge at all may find themselves exclaiming, "How beautiful!" In fact, I've known more than one person who became interested in studying geometry because of their fascination with cutting-out puzzles. Therefore, I thought it best to keep these dissection puzzles separate from the more general geometric problems.
DISSECTION PUZZLES.
"Take him and cut him out in little stars."
Romeo and Juliet, iii. 2.
"Take him and cut him up into little stars."
Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 2.
Puzzles have infinite variety, but perhaps there is no class more ancient than dissection, cutting-out, or superposition puzzles. They were certainly known to the Chinese several thousand years before the Christian era. And they are just as fascinating to-day as they can have been at any period of their history. It is supposed by those who have investigated the matter that the ancient Chinese philosophers used these Pg 28puzzles as a sort of kindergarten method of imparting the principles of geometry. Whether this was so or not, it is certain that all good dissection puzzles (for the nursery type of jig-saw puzzle, which merely consists in cutting up a picture into pieces to be put together again, is not worthy of serious consideration) are really based on geometrical laws. This statement need not, however, frighten off the novice, for it means little more than this, that geometry will give us the "reason why," if we are interested in knowing it, though the solutions may often be discovered by any intelligent person after the exercise of patience, ingenuity, and common sagacity.
Puzzles come in countless forms, but there’s probably no type more ancient than dissection, cutting-out, or superposition puzzles. They were definitely known to the Chinese thousands of years before Christ. And they’re just as captivating today as they have been at any point in history. Those who have looked into the subject believe the ancient Chinese philosophers used these Pg 28puzzles as a kind of educational tool for teaching the principles of geometry. Whether that's true or not, it’s clear that all good dissection puzzles (not the basic jigsaw type that simply involves cutting a picture into pieces to reassemble) are fundamentally based on geometric principles. However, this shouldn't scare off beginners, as it just means that geometry can provide the “reason why,” if you’re interested in finding out, although many solutions can often be figured out by anyone with patience, creativity, and common sense.
If we want to cut one plane figure into parts that by readjustment will form another figure, the first thing is to find a way of doing it at all, and then to discover how to do it in the fewest possible pieces. Often a dissection problem is quite easy apart from this limitation of pieces. At the time of the publication in the Weekly Dispatch, in 1902, of a method of cutting an equilateral triangle into four parts that will form a square (see No. 26, "Canterbury Puzzles"), no geometrician would have had any difficulty in doing what is required in five pieces: the whole point of the discovery lay in performing the little feat in four pieces only.
If we want to cut one shape into parts that can be rearranged to create another shape, the first step is figuring out if it's possible to do it at all, and then finding a way to do it using the fewest pieces. Often, a dissection problem is pretty straightforward aside from this limit on the number of pieces. When the method of cutting an equilateral triangle into four parts to make a square was published in the Weekly Dispatch in 1902 (see No. 26, "Canterbury Puzzles"), any geometrician could easily accomplish this with five pieces: the main challenge of the discovery was achieving it in just four pieces.
Mere approximations in the case of these problems are valueless; the solution must be geometrically exact, or it is not a solution at all. Fallacies are cropping up now and again, and I shall have occasion to refer to one or two of these. They are interesting merely as fallacies. But I want to say something on two little points that are always arising in cutting-out puzzles—the questions of "hanging by a thread" and "turning over." These points can best be illustrated by a puzzle that is frequently to be found in the old books, but invariably with a false solution. The puzzle is to cut the figure shown in Fig. 1 into three pieces that will fit together and form a half-square triangle. The answer that is invariably given is that shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Now, it is claimed that the four pieces marked C are really only one piece, because they may be so cut that they are left "hanging together by a mere thread." But no serious puzzle lover will ever admit this. If the cut is made so as to leave the four pieces joined in one, then it cannot result in a perfectly exact solution. If, on the other hand, the solution is to be exact, then there will be four pieces—or six pieces in all. It is, therefore, not a solution in three pieces.
Mere approximations in these problems are worthless; the solution must be geometrically exact, or it isn’t a solution at all. Fallacies pop up now and then, and I will refer to a couple of them. They’re interesting only as fallacies. But I want to address two points that frequently arise in cutting-out puzzles—the issues of "hanging by a thread" and "turning over." These points can best be illustrated by a puzzle often found in old books, but always with an incorrect solution. The puzzle is to cut the figure shown in Fig. 1 into three pieces that will fit together to form a half-square triangle. The answer that's usually provided is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It’s claimed that the four pieces marked C are actually just one piece because they can be cut in a way that leaves them "hanging together by a mere thread." However, no serious puzzle enthusiast would ever accept this. If the cut is made so that the four pieces are joined into one, then it can’t result in a perfectly exact solution. On the other hand, if the solution is to be exact, then there will be four pieces—or six pieces in total. Therefore, it’s not a solution in three pieces.


If, however, the reader will look at the solution in Figs. 3 and 4, he will see that no such fault can be found with it. There is no question whatever that there are three pieces, and the solution is in this respect quite satisfactory. But another question arises. It will be found on inspection that the piece marked F, in Fig. 3, is turned over in Fig. 4—that is to say, a different side has necessarily to be presented. If the puzzle were merely to be cut out of cardboard or wood, there might be no objection to this reversal, but it is quite possible that the material would not admit of being reversed. There might be a pattern, a polish, a difference of texture, that prevents it. But it is generally understood that in dissection puzzles you are allowed to turn pieces over unless it is distinctly stated that you may not do so. And very often a puzzle is greatly improved by the added condition, "no piece may be turned over." I have often made puzzles, too, in which the diagram has a small repeated pattern, and the pieces have then so to be cut that not only is there no turning over, but the pattern has to be matched, which cannot be done if the pieces are turned round, even with the proper side uppermost.
If the reader looks at the solution in Figs. 3 and 4, they will see that there are no faults to be found with it. There’s no doubt that there are three pieces, and the solution is quite satisfactory in this regard. However, another question arises. Upon inspection, it will be seen that the piece marked F in Fig. 3 is flipped over in Fig. 4—which means a different side has to be shown. If the puzzle were just cut out of cardboard or wood, this reversal might not be an issue, but it's possible that the material wouldn't allow for flipping. There could be a pattern, a finish, or a texture difference that makes this impossible. However, it’s generally accepted that in dissection puzzles, you can turn pieces over unless it specifically says you can't. Many times, a puzzle is greatly enhanced by the added rule, "no piece may be turned over." I've often created puzzles where the diagram has a small repeated pattern, and the pieces have to be cut in such a way that not only can you not flip them, but the pattern has to match, which can’t be achieved if the pieces are rotated, even if the correct side is facing up.
Before presenting a varied series of cutting-out puzzles, some very easy and others difficult, I propose to consider one family alone—those problems involving what is known as the Greek cross with the square. This will exhibit a great variety of curious transpositions, and, by having the solutions as we go along, the reader will be saved the trouble of perpetually turning to another part of the book, and will have everything under his eye. It is hoped that in this way the article may prove somewhat instructive to the novice and interesting to others.
Before I present a variety of cutting-out puzzles, some easy and others challenging, I’d like to focus on one specific type—those that use what’s known as the Greek cross with the square. This will show a wide range of interesting variations, and by providing the solutions as we go, the reader won’t have to keep flipping to a different section of the book, making it easier to follow everything. I hope that this approach will be somewhat educational for beginners and engaging for others.
GREEK CROSS PUZZLES.
"To fret thy soul with crosses."
SPENSER.
"To worry your soul with burdens."
SPENSER.
"But, for my part, it was Greek to me."
Julius Cæsar, i. 2.
"But for me, it was completely incomprehensible."
Julius Caesar, i. 2.
Many people are accustomed to consider the cross as a wholly Christian symbol. This is erroneous: it is of very great antiquity. The ancient Egyptians employed it as a sacred Pg 29symbol, and on Greek sculptures we find representations of a cake (the supposed real origin of our hot cross buns) bearing a cross. Two such cakes were discovered at Herculaneum. Cecrops offered to Jupiter Olympus a sacred cake or boun of this kind. The cross and ball, so frequently found on Egyptian figures, is a circle and the tau cross. The circle signified the eternal preserver of the world, and the T, named from the Greek letter tau, is the monogram of Thoth, the Egyptian Mercury, meaning wisdom. This tau cross is also called by Christians the cross of St. Anthony, and is borne on a badge in the bishop's palace at Exeter. As for the Greek or mundane cross, the cross with four equal arms, we are told by competent antiquaries that it was regarded by ancient occultists for thousands of years as a sign of the dual forces of Nature—the male and female spirit of everything that was everlasting.
Many people tend to think of the cross as strictly a Christian symbol. This is incorrect; it has very ancient origins. The ancient Egyptians used it as a sacred Pg 29 symbol, and on Greek sculptures, we see representations of a cake (the likely true origin of our hot cross buns) with a cross on it. Two such cakes were found in Herculaneum. Cecrops presented a sacred cake or boun of this kind to Jupiter Olympus. The cross and ball often found on Egyptian figures represent a circle and the tau cross. The circle symbolized the eternal preserver of the world, and the T shape, named after the Greek letter tau, is the monogram for Thoth, the Egyptian Mercury, signifying wisdom. This tau cross is also known to Christians as the cross of St. Anthony, and it appears on a badge in the bishop's palace in Exeter. As for the Greek or mundane cross, the one with four equal arms, scholars tell us that it has been viewed by ancient occultists for thousands of years as a symbol of the dual forces of Nature—the male and female spirit of everything that is eternal.


The Greek cross, as shown in Fig. 5, is formed by the assembling together of five equal squares. We will start with what is known as the Hindu problem, supposed to be upwards of three thousand years old. It appears in the seal of Harvard College, and is often given in old works as symbolical of mathematical science and exactitude. Cut the cross into five pieces to form a square. Figs. 6 and 7 show how this is done. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that we found that the cross might be transformed into a square in only four pieces. Figs. 8 and 9 will show how to do it, if we further require the four pieces to be all of the same size and shape. This Fig. 9 is remarkable because, according to Dr. Le Plongeon and others, as expounded in a work by Professor Wilson of the Smithsonian Institute, here we have the great Swastika, or sign, of "good luck to you "—the most ancient symbol of the human race of which there is any record. Professor Wilson's work gives some four hundred illustrations of this curious sign as found in the Aztec mounds of Mexico, the pyramids of Egypt, the ruins of Troy, and the ancient lore of India and China. One might almost say there is a curious affinity between the Greek cross and Swastika! If, however, we require that the four pieces shall be produced by only two clips of the scissors (assuming the puzzle is in paper form), then we must cut as in Fig. 10 to form Fig. 11, the first clip of the scissors being from a to b. Of course folding the paper, or holding the pieces together after the first cut, would not in this case be allowed. But there is an infinite number of different ways of making the cuts to solve the puzzle in four pieces. To this point I propose to return.
The Greek cross, shown in Fig. 5, is made by combining five equal squares. We'll start with what's known as the Hindu problem, which is believed to be over three thousand years old. It appears on the seal of Harvard College and is often used in old texts as a symbol of mathematical science and precision. The challenge is to cut the cross into five pieces to create a square. Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate how this can be done. It wasn't until the mid-nineteenth century that it was discovered the cross could be transformed into a square using just four pieces. Figs. 8 and 9 will demonstrate how to accomplish this, assuming we want the four pieces to be the same size and shape. Fig. 9 is noteworthy because, according to Dr. Le Plongeon and others, as detailed in a work by Professor Wilson of the Smithsonian Institute, this represents the great Swastika, or the sign of "good luck to you"—the most ancient symbol of humanity known to exist. Professor Wilson's work includes about four hundred illustrations of this intriguing symbol, found in the Aztec mounds of Mexico, the pyramids of Egypt, the ruins of Troy, and the ancient traditions of India and China. One could almost suggest there is an interesting connection between the Greek cross and the Swastika! However, if we require that the four pieces be created using only two cuts with scissors (assuming the puzzle is made of paper), we need to cut as shown in Fig. 10 to form Fig. 11, starting the first cut from a to b. Of course, folding the paper or holding the pieces together after the first cut wouldn't be allowed in this case. But there are countless ways to make the cuts to solve the puzzle in four pieces. I plan to return to this point.


It will be seen that every one of these puzzles has its reverse puzzle—to cut a square into pieces to form a Greek cross. But as a square has not so many angles as the cross, it is not always equally easy to discover the true directions of the cuts. Yet in the case of the examples given, I will leave the reader to determine their direction for himself, as they are rather obvious from the diagrams.
It’s clear that each of these puzzles has a counterpart puzzle—cutting a square into pieces to make a Greek cross. However, since a square doesn’t have as many angles as the cross, figuring out the right directions for the cuts isn’t always straightforward. For the examples provided, I’ll let the reader figure out the direction on their own, as it’s pretty clear from the diagrams.

Pg 30Cut a square into five pieces that will form two separate Greek crosses of different sizes. This is quite an easy puzzle. As will be seen in Fig. 12, we have only to divide our square into 25 little squares and then cut as shown. The cross A is cut out entire, and the pieces B, C, D, and E form the larger cross in Fig. 13. The reader may here like to cut the single piece, B, into four pieces all similar in shape to itself, and form a cross with them in the manner shown in Fig. 13. I hardly need give the solution.
Pg 30Cut a square into five pieces that will make two different-sized Greek crosses. This is a pretty simple puzzle. As shown in Fig. 12, we just need to divide our square into 25 smaller squares and then cut as indicated. The cross A is cut out in one piece, and the pieces B, C, D, and E create the larger cross in Fig. 13. You might want to cut the single piece, B, into four pieces that are all the same shape as it and arrange them into a cross like shown in Fig. 13. I don't really need to provide the solution.

Cut a square into five pieces that will form two separate Greek crosses of exactly the same size. This is more difficult. We make the cuts as in Fig. 14, where the cross A comes out entire and the other four pieces form the cross in Fig. 15. The direction of the cuts is pretty obvious. It will be seen that the sides of the square in Fig. 14 are marked off into six equal parts. The sides of the cross are found by ruling lines from certain of these points to others.
Cut a square into five pieces that will create two separate Greek crosses of exactly the same size. This is trickier. We make the cuts as shown in Fig. 14, where the cross A remains complete and the other four pieces form the cross in Fig. 15. The direction of the cuts is fairly straightforward. You’ll notice that the sides of the square in Fig. 14 are divided into six equal parts. The sides of the cross are determined by drawing lines from certain points to others.
I will now explain, as I promised, why a Greek cross may be cut into four pieces in an infinite number of different ways to make a square. Draw a cross, as in Fig. 16. Then draw on transparent paper the square shown in Fig. 17, taking care that the distance c to d is exactly the same as the distance a to b in the cross. Now place the transparent paper over the cross and slide it about into different positions, only be very careful always to keep the square at the same angle to the cross as shown, where a b is parallel to c d. If you place the point c exactly over a the lines will indicate the solution (Figs. 10 and 11). If you place c in the very centre of the dotted square, it will give the solution in Figs. 8 and 9. You will now see that by sliding the square about so that the point c is always within the dotted square you may get as many different solutions as you like; because, since an infinite number of different points may theoretically be placed within this square, there must be an infinite number of different solutions. But the point c need not necessarily be placed within the dotted square. It may be placed, for example, at point e to give a solution in four pieces. Here the joins at a and f may be as slender as you like. Yet if you once get over the edge at a or f you no longer have a solution in four pieces. This proof will be found both entertaining and instructive. If you do not happen to have any transparent paper at hand, any thin paper will of course do if you hold the two sheets against a pane of glass in the window.
I will now explain, as I promised, why a Greek cross can be cut into four pieces in countless different ways to form a square. Draw a cross, like in Fig. 16. Then draw on transparent paper the square shown in Fig. 17, making sure that the distance c to d is exactly the same as the distance a to b in the cross. Now place the transparent paper over the cross and move it around into different positions, but be careful to keep the square at the same angle to the cross as shown, where a b is parallel to c d. If you position the point c directly over a, the lines will show the solution (Figs. 10 and 11). If you place c right in the center of the dotted square, it will provide the solution in Figs. 8 and 9. You will see that by moving the square around so that point c is always within the dotted square, you can find as many different solutions as you want; because, since you can theoretically put an infinite number of different points within this square, there must be an infinite number of different solutions. However, point c doesn’t have to be placed within the dotted square. It can be positioned, for example, at point e to get a solution in four pieces. Here, the connections at a and f can be as thin as you want. But once you go over the edge at a or f, you no longer have a solution in four pieces. This proof will be both entertaining and educational. If you don’t have any transparent paper available, any thin paper will work as long as you hold the two sheets against a glass window.

It may have been noticed from the solutions of the puzzles that I have given that the side of the square formed from the cross is always equal to the distance a to b in Fig. 16. This must necessarily be so, and I will presently try to make the point quite clear.
It might have been observed from the solutions to the puzzles I provided that the side of the square created from the cross is always equal to the distance a to b in Fig. 16. This is definitely the case, and I will soon explain this clearly.
We will now go one step further. I have already said that the ideal solution to a cutting-out puzzle is always that which requires the fewest possible pieces. We have just seen that two crosses of the same size may be cut out of a square in five pieces. The reader who succeeded in solving this perhaps asked himself: "Can it be done in fewer pieces?" This is just the sort of question that the true puzzle lover is always asking, and it is the right attitude for him to adopt. The answer to the question is that the puzzle may be solved in four pieces—the fewest possible. This, then, is a new puzzle. Cut a square into four pieces that will form two Greek crosses of the same size.
We’re going to take it a step further. I’ve already mentioned that the best solution to a cutting-out puzzle is the one that uses the fewest pieces. We just saw that two crosses of the same size can be cut out of a square in five pieces. The reader who managed to solve this might be wondering, “Can it be done with fewer pieces?” This is exactly the kind of question that true puzzle enthusiasts constantly ask themselves, and it’s the right mindset to have. The answer is that the puzzle can be solved in four pieces—the absolute minimum. So, here’s a new puzzle: Cut a square into four pieces that can form two Greek crosses of the same size.

The solution is very beautiful. If you divide by points the sides of the square into three equal parts, the directions of the lines in Fig. 18 will be quite obvious. If you cut along these lines, Pg 31the pieces A and B will form the cross in Fig. 19 and the pieces C and D the similar cross in Fig. 20. In this square we have another form of Swastika.
The solution is really stunning. If you split the sides of the square into three equal segments, the orientation of the lines in Fig. 18 will be very clear. If you cut along these lines, Pg 31 the pieces A and B will create the cross in Fig. 19, while the pieces C and D will form the similar cross in Fig. 20. In this square, we have another variation of the Swastika.
The reader will here appreciate the truth of my remark to the effect that it is easier to find the directions of the cuts when transforming a cross to a square than when converting a square into a cross. Thus, in Figs. 6, 8, and 10 the directions of the cuts are more obvious than in Fig. 14, where we had first to divide the sides of the square into six equal parts, and in Fig. 18, where we divide them into three equal parts. Then, supposing you were required to cut two equal Greek crosses, each into two pieces, to form a square, a glance at Figs. 19 and 20 will show how absurdly more easy this is than the reverse puzzle of cutting the square to make two crosses.
The reader will see the truth in my comment that it’s easier to figure out the cuts needed to turn a cross into a square than to change a square into a cross. In Figs. 6, 8, and 10, the cutting directions are clearer than in Fig. 14, where we first divided the sides of the square into six equal parts, and in Fig. 18, where we divided them into three equal parts. Now, if you need to cut two equal Greek crosses into two pieces each to create a square, just looking at Figs. 19 and 20 will show how ridiculously easier this is than the opposite challenge of cutting the square to make two crosses.
Referring to my remarks on "fallacies," I will now give a little example of these "solutions" that are not solutions. Some years ago a young correspondent sent me what he evidently thought was a brilliant new discovery—the transforming of a square into a Greek cross in four pieces by cuts all parallel to the sides of the square. I give his attempt in Figs. 21 and 22, where it will be seen that the four pieces do not form a symmetrical Greek cross, because the four arms are not really squares but oblongs. To make it a true Greek cross we should require the additions that I have indicated with dotted lines. Of course his solution produces a cross, but it is not the symmetrical Greek variety required by the conditions of the puzzle. My young friend thought his attempt was "near enough" to be correct; but if he bought a penny apple with a sixpence he probably would not have thought it "near enough" if he had been given only fourpence change. As the reader advances he will realize the importance of this question of exactitude.
Referring to my comments on "fallacies," I want to share a quick example of these "solutions" that aren't really solutions. A few years back, a young correspondent sent me what he clearly believed was a brilliant new idea—the transformation of a square into a Greek cross using four pieces cut parallel to the square’s sides. You can see his attempt in Figs. 21 and 22, where it's clear that the four pieces don't actually create a symmetrical Greek cross because the four arms are not perfectly squares but rather rectangles. To make it a true Greek cross, we would need the additions I've marked with dotted lines. Sure, his solution does create a cross, but it's not the symmetrical Greek one that's required by the puzzle's conditions. My young friend thought his attempt was "close enough" to be correct; however, if he bought a penny apple with a sixpence, he probably wouldn’t consider it "close enough" if he only received fourpence in change. As you read on, you’ll grasp the significance of the issue of accuracy.

In these cutting-out puzzles it is necessary not only to get the directions of the cutting lines as correct as possible, but to remember that these lines have no width. If after cutting up one of the crosses in a manner indicated in these articles you find that the pieces do not exactly fit to form a square, you may be certain that the fault is entirely your own. Either your cross was not exactly drawn, or your cuts were not made quite in the right directions, or (if you used wood and a fret-saw) your saw was not sufficiently fine. If you cut out the puzzles in paper with scissors, or in cardboard with a penknife, no material is lost; but with a saw, however fine, there is a certain loss. In the case of most puzzles this slight loss is not sufficient to be appreciable, if the puzzle is cut out on a large scale, but there have been instances where I have found it desirable to draw and cut out each part separately—not from one diagram—in order to produce a perfect result.
In these cutting-out puzzles, it's important not only to get the cutting lines as accurate as possible but also to remember that these lines have no width. If, after cutting one of the crosses as described in these articles, you find that the pieces don’t fit together perfectly to form a square, you can be sure the mistake is entirely yours. Either your cross wasn't drawn accurately, your cuts weren't made in the correct directions, or (if you used wood and a fret saw) your saw wasn't fine enough. If you cut the puzzles out of paper with scissors or cardboard with a penknife, there's no material wasted; however, with a saw, no matter how fine, there is some loss. In most puzzles, this slight loss isn't noticeable if the puzzle is cut on a large scale, but there have been times when I've found it better to draw and cut out each piece separately—not from a single diagram—to achieve a perfect result.

Now for another puzzle. If you have cut out the five pieces indicated in Fig. 14, you will find that these can be put together so as to form the curious cross shown in Fig. 23. So if I asked you to cut Fig. 24 into five pieces to form either a square or two equal Greek crosses you would know how to do it. You would make the cuts as in Fig. 23, and place them together as in Figs. 14 and 15. But I want something better than that, and it is this. Cut Fig. 24 into only four pieces that will fit together and form a square.
Now here’s another puzzle. If you’ve cut out the five pieces shown in Fig. 14, you’ll find that they can be combined to create the interesting cross displayed in Fig. 23. So if I asked you to cut Fig. 24 into five pieces to make either a square or two equal Greek crosses, you would know how to do it. You’d make the cuts as shown in Fig. 23 and assemble them like in Figs. 14 and 15. But I want something even better. Cut Fig. 24 into just four pieces that will fit together to form a square.

The solution to the puzzle is shown in Figs. 25 and 26. The direction of the cut dividing A and C in the first diagram is very obvious, and the second cut is made at right angles to it. That the four pieces should fit together and form a square will surprise the novice, who will do well to study the puzzle with some care, as it is most instructive.
The solution to the puzzle is shown in Figs. 25 and 26. The direction of the cut separating A and C in the first diagram is very clear, and the second cut is made at a right angle to it. The fact that the four pieces fit together to form a square may surprise beginners, who will benefit from studying the puzzle carefully, as it is quite informative.
I will now explain the beautiful rule by which we determine the size of a square that shall have the same area as a Greek cross, for it is applicable, and necessary, to the solution of almost every dissection puzzle that we meet with. It was first discovered by the philosopher Pythagoras, who died 500 B.C., and is the 47th proposition of Euclid. The young reader who knows nothing of the elements of geometry will get some idea of the fascinating character of that science. The triangle ABC in Fig. 27 is what we call a right-angled triangle, because the side BC is at right angles to the side AB. Now if we build up a square on each side of the triPg 32angle, the squares on AB and BC will together be exactly equal to the square on the long side AC, which we call the hypotenuse. This is proved in the case I have given by subdividing the three squares into cells of equal dimensions.
I will now explain the elegant rule we use to find the size of a square that has the same area as a Greek cross, as it's relevant and essential for solving nearly every dissection puzzle we encounter. This rule was first discovered by the philosopher Pythagoras, who died in 500 B.C., and is the 47th proposition of Euclid. Young readers who are unfamiliar with the basics of geometry will gain some insight into the captivating nature of that field. The triangle ABC in Fig. 27 is a right-angled triangle because the side BC is perpendicular to the side AB. If we construct a square on each side of the triangle, the squares on AB and BC will together be precisely equal to the square on the longest side AC, which we refer to as the hypotenuse. This is demonstrated in the case I presented by dividing the three squares into equal-sized cells.

It will be seen that 9 added to 16 equals 25, the number of cells in the large square. If you make triangles with the sides 5, 12 and 13, or with 8, 15 and 17, you will get similar arithmetical proofs, for these are all "rational" right-angled triangles, but the law is equally true for all cases. Supposing we cut off the lower arm of a Greek cross and place it to the left of the upper arm, as in Fig. 28, then the square on EF added to the square on DE exactly equals a square on DF. Therefore we know that the square of DF will contain the same area as the cross. This fact we have proved practically by the solutions of the earlier puzzles of this series. But whatever length we give to DE and EF, we can never give the exact length of DF in numbers, because the triangle is not a "rational" one. But the law is none the less geometrically true.
You can see that 9 plus 16 equals 25, which is the number of cells in the large square. If you create triangles with sides measuring 5, 12, and 13, or with 8, 15, and 17, you'll find similar mathematical proofs, as these are all "rational" right-angled triangles, but the principle holds true in all scenarios. If we remove the lower arm of a Greek cross and place it to the left of the upper arm, like in Fig. 28, then the square on EF plus the square on DE equals the square on DF. This tells us that the square of DF has the same area as the cross. We’ve practically proven this with the solutions to the earlier puzzles in this series. However, regardless of the lengths we assign to DE and EF, we can never pinpoint the exact length of DF in numbers, because the triangle isn’t a "rational" one. But the principle is still geometrically valid.

Now look at Fig. 29, and you will see an elegant method for cutting a piece of wood of the shape of two squares (of any relative dimensions) into three pieces that will fit together and form a single square. If you mark off the distance ab equal to the side cd the directions of the cuts are very evident. From what we have just been considering, you will at once see why bc must be the length of the side of the new square. Make the experiment as often as you like, taking different relative proportions for the two squares, and you will find the rule always come true. If you make the two squares of exactly the same size, you will see that the diagonal of any square is always the side of a square that is twice the size. All this, which is so simple that anybody can understand it, is very essential to the solving of cutting-out puzzles. It is in fact the key to most of them. And it is all so beautiful that it seems a pity that it should not be familiar to everybody.
Now take a look at Fig. 29, and you'll see a clever way to cut a piece of wood shaped like two squares (of any size) into three pieces that fit together to form a single square. If you measure off the distance ab equal to the side cd, it's clear where the cuts should go. From what we've just discussed, you can see right away why bc must be the length of the new square's side. Try this out as many times as you want, using different sizes for the two squares, and you'll find that the rule always holds true. If you make the two squares exactly the same size, you'll notice that the diagonal of any square is always the side of a square twice its size. All this, which is simple enough for anyone to grasp, is crucial for solving cutting-out puzzles. In fact, it's the key to most of them. It's all so beautiful that it just seems a shame that everyone doesn't know it.

We will now go one step further and deal with the half-square. Take a square and cut it in half diagonally. Now try to discover how to cut this triangle into four pieces that will form a Greek cross. The solution is shown in Figs. 31 and 32. In this case it will be seen that we divide two of the sides of the triangle into three equal parts and the long side into four equal parts. Then the direction of the cuts will be easily found. It is a pretty puzzle, and a little more difficult than some of the others that I have given. It should be noted again that it would have been much easier to locate the cuts in the reverse puzzle of cutting the cross to form a half-square triangle.
We will now take it a step further and tackle the half-square. Take a square and cut it in half diagonally. Now, try to figure out how to cut this triangle into four pieces that will create a Greek cross. The solution is displayed in Figs. 31 and 32. Here, you'll notice that we divide two of the sides of the triangle into three equal parts and the long side into four equal parts. Then, the direction of the cuts will be easy to determine. It's a fun puzzle and a bit more challenging than some of the others I've presented. It should also be mentioned that it would have been much easier to identify the cuts in the reverse puzzle of cutting the cross to make a half-square triangle.

Another ideal that the puzzle maker always keeps in mind is to contrive that there shall, if possible, be only one correct solution. Thus, in the case of the first puzzle, if we only require that a Greek cross shall be cut into four pieces to form a square, there is, as I have shown, an infinite number of different solutions. It makes a better puzzle to add the condition that all the four pieces shall be of the same size and shape, because it can then be solved in only one way, as in Figs. 8 and 9. In this way, too, a puzzle that is too easy to be interesting may be improved by such an addition. Let us take an example. We have seen in Fig. 28 that Fig. 33 can be cut into two pieces to form a Greek cross. I suppose an intelligent child would do it in five minutes. But suppose we say that the puzzle has to be solved with a piece of wood that has Pg 33a bad knot in the position shown in Fig. 33—a knot that we must not attempt to cut through—then a solution in two pieces is barred out, and it becomes a more interesting puzzle to solve it in three pieces. I have shown in Figs. 33 and 34 one way of doing this, and it will be found entertaining to discover other ways of doing it. Of course I could bar out all these other ways by introducing more knots, and so reduce the puzzle to a single solution, but it would then be overloaded with conditions.
Another important thing the puzzle maker keeps in mind is to create only one correct solution if possible. For instance, in the first puzzle, if we only need a Greek cross to be cut into four pieces to form a square, there are, as I’ve shown, countless different solutions. It makes for a better puzzle to add the requirement that all four pieces are the same size and shape because then it can only be solved in one way, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. This also means that a puzzle that’s too easy to be interesting can be improved by such a change. Let’s take an example. We saw in Fig. 28 that Fig. 33 can be cut into two pieces to form a Greek cross. I imagine a smart child could solve it in five minutes. But if we say that the puzzle must be solved with a piece of wood that has Pg 33a bad knot in the position shown in Fig. 33—a knot that we can’t cut through—then a solution in two pieces isn’t possible, making it a more interesting puzzle to solve it in three pieces. I’ve shown in Figs. 33 and 34 one way to do this, and it will be fun to discover other methods. Of course, I could eliminate all these other methods by adding more knots, which would lead to a single solution, but then the puzzle would have too many conditions.
And this brings us to another point in seeking the ideal. Do not overload your conditions, or you will make your puzzle too complex to be interesting. The simpler the conditions of a puzzle are, the better. The solution may be as complex and difficult as you like, or as happens, but the conditions ought to be easily understood, or people will not attempt a solution.
And this brings us to another point in pursuing the ideal. Don’t overload your conditions, or you’ll make your puzzle too complicated to be interesting. The simpler the conditions of a puzzle are, the better. The solution can be as complex and challenging as you want, but the conditions should be easy to understand, or people won't try to solve it.
If the reader were now asked "to cut a half-square into as few pieces as possible to form a Greek cross," he would probably produce our solution, Figs. 31-32, and confidently claim that he had solved the puzzle correctly. In this way he would be wrong, because it is not now stated that the square is to be divided diagonally. Although we should always observe the exact conditions of a puzzle we must not read into it conditions that are not there. Many puzzles are based entirely on the tendency that people have to do this.
If you were to ask someone to "cut a half-square into as few pieces as possible to make a Greek cross," they'd likely come up with our solution, Figs. 31-32, and confidently say they solved the puzzle correctly. However, they'd be mistaken because it doesn't state that the square should be divided diagonally. While we should always pay attention to the specific conditions of a puzzle, we shouldn't add assumptions that aren't provided. Many puzzles rely on this tendency people have to do so.
The very first essential in solving a puzzle is to be sure that you understand the exact conditions. Now, if you divided your square in half so as to produce Fig. 35 it is possible to cut it into as few as three pieces to form a Greek cross. We thus save a piece.
The first key step in solving a puzzle is to make sure you understand the exact conditions. Now, if you split your square in half to create Fig. 35, you can cut it into as few as three pieces to form a Greek cross. This way, we save a piece.

I give another puzzle in Fig. 36. The dotted lines are added merely to show the correct proportions of the figure—a square of 25 cells with the four corner cells cut out. The puzzle is to cut this figure into five pieces that will form a Greek cross (entire) and a square.
I present another puzzle in Fig. 36. The dotted lines are just there to indicate the correct proportions of the figure—a square made up of 25 cells with the four corner cells removed. The challenge is to cut this figure into five pieces that will create a complete Greek cross and a square.
The solution to the first of the two puzzles last given—to cut a rectangle of the shape of a half-square into three pieces that will form a Greek cross—is shown in Figs. 37 and 38. It will be seen that we divide the long sides of the oblong into six equal parts and the short sides into three equal parts, in order to get the points that will indicate the direction of the cuts. The reader should compare this solution with some of the previous illustrations. He will see, for example, that if we continue the cut that divides B and C in the cross, we get Fig. 15.
The solution to the first of the two puzzles given earlier—cutting a rectangle shaped like a half-square into three pieces that form a Greek cross—is shown in Figs. 37 and 38. You can see that we divide the longer sides of the rectangle into six equal parts and the shorter sides into three equal parts to mark the points that will guide the cuts. You should compare this solution with some of the earlier illustrations. For instance, if we extend the cut that separates B and C in the cross, we get Fig. 15.

The other puzzle, like the one illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13, will show how useful a little arithmetic may sometimes prove to be in the solution of dissection puzzles. There are twenty-one of those little square cells into which our figure is subdivided, from which we have to form both a square and a Greek cross. Now, as the cross is built up of five squares, and 5 from 21 leaves 16—a square number—we ought easily to be led to the solution shown in Fig. 39. It will be seen that the cross is cut out entire, while the four remaining pieces form the square in Fig. 40.
The other puzzle, like the one shown in Figs. 12 and 13, will demonstrate how helpful a bit of math can sometimes be in solving dissection puzzles. Our figure is divided into twenty-one small square cells, from which we need to create both a square and a Greek cross. Since the cross consists of five squares, subtracting 5 from 21 leaves us with 16—a perfect square—so we should easily arrive at the solution shown in Fig. 39. You'll notice that the cross is cut out completely, while the four leftover pieces create the square in Fig. 40.

Of course a half-square rectangle is the same as a double square, or two equal squares joined together. Therefore, if you want to solve the puzzle of cutting a Greek cross into four pieces to form two separate squares of the same size, all you have to do is to continue the short cut in Fig. 38 right across the cross, and you will have four pieces of the same size and shape. Now divide Fig. 37 into two equal squares by a horizontal cut midway and you will see the four pieces forming the two squares.
Of course, a half-square rectangle is the same as a double square, or two equal squares joined together. So, if you want to solve the puzzle of cutting a Greek cross into four pieces to create two separate squares of the same size, all you need to do is extend the short cut in Fig. 38 right across the cross, and you’ll end up with four pieces that are the same size and shape. Now, divide Fig. 37 into two equal squares with a horizontal cut in the middle, and you’ll see the four pieces forming the two squares.

Pg 34Cut a Greek cross into five pieces that will form two separate squares, one of which shall contain half the area of one of the arms of the cross. In further illustration of what I have already written, if the two squares of the same size A B C D and B C F E, in Fig. 41, are cut in the manner indicated by the dotted lines, the four pieces will form the large square A G E C. We thus see that the diagonal A C is the side of a square twice the size of A B C D. It is also clear that half the diagonal of any square is equal to the side of a square of half the area. Therefore, if the large square in the diagram is one of the arms of your cross, the small square is the size of one of the squares required in the puzzle.
Pg 34Cut a Greek cross into five pieces that will create two separate squares, one of which will have half the area of one of the arms of the cross. To clarify what I've already explained, if the two squares of the same size A B C D and B C F E, shown in Fig. 41, are cut according to the dotted lines, the four pieces will form the large square A G E C. This demonstrates that the diagonal A C is the side of a square that is twice the size of A B C D. It's also clear that half the diagonal of any square equals the side of a square that has half the area. So, if the large square in the diagram represents one of the arms of your cross, the small square is the size of one of the squares needed for the puzzle.

The solution is shown in Figs. 42 and 43. It will be seen that the small square is cut out whole and the large square composed of the four pieces B, C, D, and E. After what I have written, the reader will have no difficulty in seeing that the square A is half the size of one of the arms of the cross, because the length of the diagonal of the former is clearly the same as the side of the latter. The thing is now self-evident. I have thus tried to show that some of these puzzles that many people are apt to regard as quite wonderful and bewildering, are really not difficult if only we use a little thought and judgment. In conclusion of this particular subject I will give four Greek cross puzzles, with detached solutions.
The solution is shown in Figs. 42 and 43. You’ll notice that the small square is completely cut out, and the large square is made up of the four pieces B, C, D, and E. After what I’ve explained, you shouldn’t have any trouble seeing that square A is half the size of one of the arms of the cross since the length of its diagonal is clearly the same as the side of the arm. This is now obvious. I’ve tried to demonstrate that some of these puzzles, which many people find amazing and confusing, are actually not that hard if we just apply a little thought and judgment. To wrap up this topic, I will present four Greek cross puzzles, along with separate solutions.
The lady members of the Wilkinson family had made a simple patchwork quilt, as a small Christmas present, all composed of square pieces of the same size, as shown in the illustration. It only lacked the four corner pieces to make it complete. Somebody pointed out to them that if you unpicked the Greek cross in the middle and then cut the stitches along the dark joins, the four pieces all of the same size and shape would fit together and form a square. This the reader knows, from the solution in Fig. 39, is quite easily done. But George Wilkinson suddenly suggested to them this poser. He said, "Instead of picking out the cross entire, and forming the square from four equal pieces, can you cut out a square entire and four equal pieces that will form a perfect Greek cross?" The puzzle is, of course, now quite easy.
The women in the Wilkinson family had created a simple patchwork quilt as a small Christmas gift, made entirely of square pieces of the same size, as shown in the illustration. It just needed the four corner pieces to be complete. Someone pointed out that if they removed the Greek cross in the middle and cut the stitches along the dark joins, the four pieces of the same size and shape would fit together to form a square. As the reader knows from the solution in Fig. 39, this is quite easy to do. However, George Wilkinson suddenly threw them a challenge. He said, "Instead of taking out the cross completely to make a square from four equal pieces, can you cut out a whole square and four equal pieces that will create a perfect Greek cross?" The puzzle is, of course, now quite simple.

Cut a Greek cross into five pieces that will form two such crosses, both of the same size. The solution of this puzzle is very beautiful.
Cut a Greek cross into five pieces that will create two identical crosses, both the same size. The solution to this puzzle is quite elegant.
Cut a Greek cross into six pieces that will form an equilateral triangle. This is another hard problem, and I will state here that a solution is practically impossible without a previous knowledge of my method of transforming an equilateral triangle into a square (see No. 26, "Canterbury Puzzles").
Cut a Greek cross into six pieces that will create an equilateral triangle. This is another tough problem, and I want to mention that finding a solution is almost impossible without previous knowledge of my method for transforming an equilateral triangle into a square (see No. 26, "Canterbury Puzzles").
Cut out of paper a Greek cross; then so fold it that with a single straight cut of the scissors the four pieces produced will form a square.
Cut out a Greek cross from paper; then fold it in a way that a single straight cut with scissors will create four pieces that can be arranged into a square.
VARIOUS DISSECTION PUZZLES.
We will now consider a small miscellaneous selection of cutting-out puzzles, varying in degrees of difficulty.
We will now look at a small random selection of cut-out puzzles, which vary in difficulty.

First, cut out a piece of paper or cardboard of the shape shown in the illustration. It will be seen at once that the proportions are simply those of a square attached to half of another similar square, divided diagonally. The puzzle is to cut it into four pieces all of precisely the same size and shape.
First, cut out a piece of paper or cardboard in the shape shown in the illustration. You'll notice right away that the proportions are just a square attached to half of another similar square, divided diagonally. The challenge is to cut it into four pieces that are all exactly the same size and shape.

If you take a rectangular piece of cardboard, twice as long as it is broad, and cut it in half diagonally, you will get two of the pieces shown in the illustration. The puzzle is with five such pieces of equal size to form a square. One of the pieces may be cut in two, but the others must be used intact.
If you take a rectangular piece of cardboard that's twice as long as it is wide and cut it in half diagonally, you'll end up with two pieces like the ones in the illustration. The challenge is to use five of these equal-sized pieces to create a square. You can cut one of the pieces in half, but the others have to stay whole.

The three circles represent three buns, and it is simply required to show how these may be equally divided among four boys. The buns must be regarded as of equal thickness throughout and of equal thickness to each other. Of course, they must be cut into as few pieces as possible. To simplify it I will state the rather surprising fact that only five pieces are necessary, from which it will be seen that one boy gets his share in two pieces and the other three receive theirs in a single piece. I am aware that this statement "gives away" the puzzle, but it should not destroy its interest to those who like to discover the "reason why."
The three circles represent three buns, and it's simply necessary to show how these can be evenly divided among four boys. The buns should be considered to have uniform thickness and to be equal in thickness to each other. Naturally, they need to be cut into as few pieces as possible. To make it easier, I’ll mention the surprising fact that only five pieces are needed, which means one boy gets his portion in two pieces while the other three each get theirs in a single piece. I know that this statement spoils the puzzle a bit, but it shouldn't take away from the interest for those who enjoy figuring out the "reason why."

Here is a slab of chocolate, indented at the dotted lines so that the twenty squares can be easily separated. Make a copy of the slab in paper or cardboard and then try to cut it into nine pieces so that they will form four perfect squares all of exactly the same size.
Here is a chocolate bar, marked with dotted lines so that the twenty squares can be easily divided. Create a copy of the bar using paper or cardboard and then try to cut it into nine pieces so that they can form four perfect squares, each exactly the same size.

The figure that is perplexing the carpenter in the illustration represents a mitre. It will be seen that its proportions are those of a square with one quarter removed. The puzzle is to cut it into five pieces that will fit together and form a perfect square. I show an attempt, published in America, to perform the feat in Pg 36four pieces, based on what is known as the "step principle," but it is a fallacy.
The shape that’s confusing the carpenter in the illustration is a miter. You can see that its proportions are like a square with one quarter taken out. The challenge is to cut it into five pieces that can fit together to form a perfect square. I demonstrate an attempt, published in America, to achieve this in Pg 36 four pieces, using what’s called the "step principle," but it’s incorrect.

We are told first to cut oft the pieces 1 and 2 and pack them into the triangular space marked off by the dotted line, and so form a rectangle.
We are instructed first to cut off pieces 1 and 2 and fit them into the triangular space outlined by the dotted line, thus creating a rectangle.
So far, so good. Now, we are directed to apply the old step principle, as shown, and, by moving down the piece 4 one step, form the required square. But, unfortunately, it does not produce a square: only an oblong. Call the three long sides of the mitre 84 in. each. Then, before cutting the steps, our rectangle in three pieces will be 84×63. The steps must be 10½ in. in height and 12 in. in breadth. Therefore, by moving down a step we reduce by 12 in. the side 84 in. and increase by 10½ in. the side 63 in. Hence our final rectangle must be 72 in. × 73½ in., which certainly is not a square! The fact is, the step principle can only be applied to rectangles with sides of particular relative lengths. For example, if the shorter side in this case were 615/7 (instead of 63), then the step method would apply. For the steps would then be 102/7 in. in height and 12 in. in breadth. Note that 615/7 × 84= the square of 72. At present no solution has been found in four pieces, and I do not believe one possible.
So far, so good. Now, we need to apply the old step principle, as shown, and by moving down the piece 4 one step, form the required square. But unfortunately, it does not create a square: just an oblong. Let's call the three long sides of the mitre 84 in. each. Before cutting the steps, our rectangle in three pieces will be 84×63. The steps need to be 10½ in. high and 12 in. wide. So, by moving down a step, we reduce the 84 in. side by 12 in. and increase the 63 in. side by 10½ in. Thus, our final rectangle must be 72 in. × 73½ in., which definitely isn’t a square! The reality is that the step principle can only be applied to rectangles with sides of specific relative lengths. For instance, if the shorter side in this case were 615/7 (instead of 63), then the step method would be applicable. Because then the steps would be 102/7 in. high and 12 in. wide. Note that 615/7 × 84 = the square of 72. Currently, no solution has been found in four pieces, and I don’t believe one is possible.
I have often had occasion to remark on the practical utility of puzzles, arising out of an application to the ordinary affairs of life of the little tricks and "wrinkles" that we learn while solving recreation problems.
I have often noticed the practical usefulness of puzzles, stemming from how we can apply the little tricks and "hacks" we pick up while solving fun problems to everyday life.


A joiner had two pieces of wood of the shapes and relative proportions shown in the diagram. He wished to cut them into as few pieces as possible so that they could be fitted together, without waste, to form a perfectly square table-top. How should he have done it? There is no necessity to give measurements, for if the smaller piece (which is half a square) be made a little too large or a little too small it will not affect the method of solution.
A carpenter had two pieces of wood with the shapes and sizes shown in the diagram. He wanted to cut them into as few pieces as possible so they could fit together perfectly without any waste to create a square table-top. How should he have done this? There’s no need to provide measurements, because whether the smaller piece (which is half a square) is slightly too large or slightly too small won’t change the solution method.
Here is a little cutting-out poser. I take a strip of paper, measuring five inches by one inch, and, by cutting it into five pieces, the parts fit together and form a square, as shown in the illustration. Now, it is quite an interesting puzzle to discover how we can do this in only four pieces.
Here’s a fun little puzzle. I take a strip of paper that’s five inches by one inch, and by cutting it into five pieces, the parts fit together to make a square, just like in the picture. Now, it’s pretty interesting to figure out how we can do this with just four pieces.


Mrs. Hobson's boy had an accident when playing with the fire, and burnt two of the corners of a pretty hearthrug. The damaged corners have been cut away, and it now has the appearance and proportions shown in my diagram. How is Mrs. Hobson to cut the rug into the fewest possible pieces that will fit together and form a perfectly square rug? It will be seen that the rug is in the proportions 36 × 27 (it does not matter whether we say inches or yards), and each piece cut away measured 12 and 6 on the outside.
Mrs. Hobson's son had an accident while playing with fire and burned two corners of a nice hearthrug. The damaged corners have been cut off, and it now looks and measures as shown in my diagram. How can Mrs. Hobson cut the rug into the fewest possible pieces that will fit together to create a perfect square rug? It's clear that the rug has dimensions of 36 x 27 (it doesn't matter if we say inches or yards), and each piece that was cut away measured 12 and 6 on the outside.
I wonder how many of my readers, amongst those who have not given any close attention to the elements of geometry, could draw a regular pentagon, or five-sided figure, if they suddenly required to do so. A regular hexagon, or six-sided figure, is easy enough, for everybody knows that all you have to do is to describe a circle and then, taking the radius as the length of one of the sides, mark off the six points round the circumference. But a pentagon is quite another matter. So, as my puzzle has to do with the cutting up of a regular pentagon, it will perhaps be well if I first show my less experienced readers how this figure is to be correctly drawn. Describe a circle and draw the two lines H B and D G, in the diagram, through the centre at right angles. Now find the point A, midway between C and B. Next place the point of your compasses at A and with Pg 38the distance A D describe the arc cutting H B at E. Then place the point of your compasses at D and with the distance D E describe the arc cutting the circumference at F. Now, D F is one of the sides of your pentagon, and you have simply to mark off the other sides round the circle. Quite simple when you know how, but otherwise somewhat of a poser.
I wonder how many of my readers, especially those who haven't paid close attention to the elements of geometry, could draw a regular pentagon, or five-sided figure, if they suddenly needed to. A regular hexagon, or six-sided figure, is pretty straightforward; everyone knows that all you have to do is draw a circle and mark off six points around the edge using the radius as the length of one of the sides. But a pentagon is a different story. Since my puzzle involves cutting up a regular pentagon, it might be helpful to show my less experienced readers how to accurately draw this shape. Start by drawing a circle and then draw the two lines H B and D G through the center at right angles. Next, find point A, which is midway between C and B. Now, place the point of your compass at A and, using the distance A D, draw an arc that intersects H B at E. Then, place the point of your compass at D and, using the distance D E, draw an arc that intersects the circumference at F. Now, D F is one of the sides of your pentagon, and you just need to mark off the other sides around the circle. It’s pretty simple once you know how, but can be a bit tricky otherwise.

Having formed your pentagon, the puzzle is to cut it into the fewest possible pieces that will fit together and form a perfect square.
Having created your pentagon, the challenge is to cut it into the fewest pieces possible that can fit together to form a perfect square.

A good puzzle is that which the gentleman in the illustration is showing to his friends. He has simply cut out of paper an equilateral triangle—that is, a triangle with all its three sides of the same length. He proposes that it shall be cut into five pieces in such a way that they will fit together and form either two or three smaller equilateral triangles, using all the material in each case. Can you discover how the cuts should be made?
A good puzzle is what the guy in the picture is showing to his friends. He has simply cut an equilateral triangle out of paper—that is, a triangle where all three sides are the same length. He challenges them to cut it into five pieces in a way that they can fit together to make either two or three smaller equilateral triangles, using all the material each time. Can you figure out how to make the cuts?
Remember that when you have made your five pieces, you must be able, as desired, to put them together to form either the single original triangle or to form two triangles or to form three triangles—all equilateral.
Remember that once you have created your five pieces, you should be able, as needed, to assemble them to create either the one original triangle or to make two triangles or to create three triangles—all equilateral.
I have frequently had occasion to show that the published answers to a great many of the oldest and most widely known puzzles are either quite incorrect or capable of improvement. I propose to consider the old poser of the table-top and stools that most of my readers have probably seen in some form or another in books compiled for the recreation of childhood.
I’ve often had the chance to demonstrate that the published answers to many of the oldest and most famous puzzles are either completely wrong or could be improved. I plan to take a look at the old riddle of the table and stools that most of my readers have probably encountered in some way in books made for childhood fun.
The story is told that an economical and ingenious schoolmaster once wished to convert a circular table-top, for which he had no use, into seats for two oval stools, each with a hand-hole in the centre. He instructed the carpenter to make the cuts as in the illustration and then join the eight pieces together in the manner shown. So impressed was he with the ingenuity of his performance that he set the puzzle to his geometry class as a little study in dissection. But the remainder of the story has never been published, because, so it is said, it was a characteristic of the principals of academies that they would never admit that they could err. I get my information from a dePg 39scendant of the original boy who had most reason to be interested in the matter.
The story goes that a clever and resourceful schoolteacher once wanted to turn a circular table-top, which he had no use for, into seats for two oval stools, each with a hand-hole in the center. He directed the carpenter to make the cuts shown in the illustration and then join the eight pieces together as depicted. He was so impressed with the creativity of his solution that he presented the challenge to his geometry class as an exercise in dissection. However, the rest of the story has never been published because, as it's said, principals of academies would never admit they could be wrong. I got my information from a dePg 39scendant of the original boy who had the most reason to be interested in this.
The clever youth suggested modestly to the master that the hand-holes were too big, and that a small boy might perhaps fall through them. He therefore proposed another way of making the cuts that would get over this objection. For his impertinence he received such severe chastisement that he became convinced that the larger the hand-hole in the stools the more comfortable might they be.
The clever young man modestly told the master that the hand holes were too big, and that a small child might fall through them. He then suggested a different way of making the cuts to address this issue. For his impertinence, he received such harsh punishment that he became convinced that the larger the hand hole in the stools, the more comfortable they would be.

Now what was the method the boy proposed?
Now, what method did the boy suggest?
Can you show how the circular table-top may be cut into eight pieces that will fit together and form two oval seats for stools (each of exactly the same size and shape) and each having similar hand-holes of smaller dimensions than in the case shown above? Of course, all the wood must be used.
Can you demonstrate how to cut the circular table-top into eight pieces that will fit together to create two oval seats for stools (each with the same size and shape) and each featuring hand-holes that are smaller than those shown above? Of course, all the wood must be used.

Here is a symbol of tremendous antiquity which is worthy of notice. It is borne on the Korean ensign and merchant flag, and has been adopted as a trade sign by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, though probably few are aware that it is the Great Monad, as shown in the sketch below. This sign is to the Chinaman what the cross is to the Christian. It is the sign of Deity and eternity, while the two parts into which the circle is divided are called the Yin and the Yan—the male and female forces of nature. A writer on the subject more than three thousand years ago is reported to have said in reference to it: "The illimitable produces the great extreme. The great extreme produces the two principles. The two principles produce the four quarters, and from the four quarters we develop the quadrature of the eight diagrams of Feuh-hi." I hope readers will not ask me to explain this, for I have not the slightest idea what it means. Yet I am persuaded that for ages the symbol has had occult and probably mathematical meanings for the esoteric student.
Here is a symbol of great antiquity that deserves attention. It's featured on the Korean flag and merchant flag, and has been adopted as a trade symbol by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, though probably few realize that it is the Great Monad, as shown in the sketch below. This symbol is to the Chinese what the cross is to Christians. It represents divinity and eternity, while the two parts that divide the circle are called the Yin and the Yang—the male and female forces of nature. A writer on this topic over three thousand years ago is reported to have said about it: "The limitless produces the great extreme. The great extreme produces the two principles. The two principles produce the four quarters, and from the four quarters we develop the quadrature of the eight diagrams of Feuh-hi." I hope readers won't ask me to explain this, as I have no idea what it means. However, I believe this symbol has held mysterious and likely mathematical meanings for those studying it esoterically for ages.
I will introduce the Monad in its elementary form. Here are three easy questions respecting this great symbol:—
I will introduce the Monad in its basic form. Here are three simple questions about this important symbol:—
(I.) Which has the greater area, the inner circle containing the Yin and the Yan, or the outer ring?
(I.) Which has a larger area, the inner circle that holds the Yin and the Yan, or the outer ring?
(II.) Divide the Yin and the Yan into four pieces of the same size and shape by one cut.
(II.) Cut the Yin and the Yan into four equal pieces that are the same size and shape with a single cut.
(III.) Divide the Yin and the Yan into four pieces of the same size, but different shape, by one straight cut.
(III.) Split the Yin and the Yan into four equal pieces that are the same size but have different shapes, using one straight cut.
The following represents a piece of wood in my possession, 5 in. square. By markings on the surface it is divided into twenty-five square inches. I want to discover a way of cutting this piece of wood into the fewest possible pieces that will fit together and form two perfect squares of different sizes and of known dimensions. But, unfortunately, at every one of the sixteen intersections of the cross lines a small nail has been driven in at some time or other, and my fret-saw will be injured if it comes in Pg 40contact with any of these. I have therefore to find a method of doing the work that will not necessitate my cutting through any of those sixteen points. How is it to be done? Remember, the exact dimensions of the two squares must be given.
The following describes a piece of wood I have that is 5 inches square. It has markings on the surface that divide it into twenty-five square inches. I need to figure out how to cut this piece of wood into the fewest pieces possible that will fit together to form two perfect squares of different sizes with specified dimensions. Unfortunately, at each of the sixteen intersections of the cross lines, a small nail has been driven in at some point, and my fret saw will be damaged if it touches any of these. Therefore, I need to find a way to do the work without cutting through any of those sixteen points. How can this be done? Keep in mind, the exact dimensions of the two squares must be provided.

Why horseshoes should be considered "lucky" is one of those things which no man can understand. It is a very old superstition, and John Aubrey (1626-1700) says, "Most houses at the West End of London have a horseshoe on the threshold." In Monmouth Street there were seventeen in 1813 and seven so late as 1855. Even Lord Nelson had one nailed to the mast of the ship Victory. To-day we find it more conducive to "good luck" to see that they are securely nailed on the feet of the horse we are about to drive.
Why horseshoes are considered "lucky" is something that no one can fully understand. It’s an old superstition, and John Aubrey (1626-1700) mentions, "Most houses at the West End of London have a horseshoe on the threshold." In Monmouth Street, there were seventeen in 1813 and seven as recently as 1855. Even Lord Nelson had one nailed to the mast of the ship Victory. Nowadays, we believe it's more important for "good luck" that they are securely nailed to the feet of the horse we’re about to drive.
Nevertheless, so far as the horseshoe, like the Swastika and other emblems that I have had occasion at times to deal with, has served to symbolize health, prosperity, and goodwill towards men, we may well treat it with a certain amount of respectful interest. May there not, moreover, be some esoteric or lost mathematical mystery concealed in the form of a horseshoe? I have been looking into this matter, and I wish to draw my readers' attention to the very remarkable fact that the pair of horseshoes shown in my illustration are related in a striking and beautiful manner to the circle, which is the symbol of eternity. I present this fact in the form of a simple problem, so that it may be seen how subtly this relation has been concealed for ages and ages. My readers will, I know, be pleased when they find the key to the mystery.
However, considering that the horseshoe, like the Swastika and other symbols I've discussed at times, represents health, prosperity, and goodwill toward people, we can approach it with a certain level of respectful curiosity. Could there also be some hidden or forgotten mathematical mystery embedded in the shape of a horseshoe? I've been exploring this topic and would like to highlight the fascinating fact that the pair of horseshoes shown in my illustration is connected in a striking and beautiful way to the circle, which symbolizes eternity. I present this fact as a simple puzzle so that the subtlety of this relationship, concealed for ages, can be revealed. I believe my readers will be delighted when they discover the key to this mystery.

Cut out the two horseshoes carefully round the outline and then cut them into four pieces, all different in shape, that will fit together and form a perfect circle. Each shoe must be cut into two pieces and all the part of the horse's hoof contained within the outline is to be used and regarded as part of the area.
Cut out the two horseshoes carefully along the outline and then cut them into four pieces, each shaped differently, that will fit together to form a perfect circle. Each shoe must be cut into two pieces, and all parts of the horse's hoof within the outline should be used and considered part of the area.
A correspondent asked me to supply him with the solution to an old puzzle that is attributed to a certain Betsy Ross, of Philadelphia, who showed it to George Washington. It consists in so folding a piece of paper that with one clip of the scissors a five-pointed star of Freedom may be produced. Whether the story of the puzzle's origin is a true one or not I cannot say, but I have a print of the old house in Philadelphia where the lady is said to have lived, and I believe it still stands there. But my readers will doubtless be interested in the little poser.
A correspondent asked me to provide the solution to an old puzzle attributed to a woman named Betsy Ross from Philadelphia, who supposedly showed it to George Washington. The puzzle involves folding a piece of paper in such a way that one cut with scissors can create a five-pointed star of Freedom. I can’t confirm if the story of how the puzzle originated is true, but I have a print of the old house in Philadelphia where she is said to have lived, and I believe it still exists. However, my readers will likely be curious about this little puzzle.
Take a circular piece of paper and so fold it that with one cut of the scissors you can produce a perfect five-pointed star.
Take a circular piece of paper and fold it in a way that allows you to make one cut with scissors to create a perfect five-pointed star.

Can you cut this chain out of a piece of cardboard without any join whatever? Every link is solid; without its having been split and afterwards joined at any place. It is an interesting old puzzle that I learnt as a child, but I have no knowledge as to its inventor.
Can you cut this chain out of a piece of cardboard without any joins at all? Every link is solid, without being split and then joined at any point. It's an interesting old puzzle I learned as a kid, but I have no idea who originally came up with it.
It may be interesting to introduce here, though it is not strictly a puzzle, an ingenious method for making a paper box.
It might be interesting to share an clever way to make a paper box here, even though it's not exactly a puzzle.
Take a square of stout paper and by successive foldings make all the creases indicated by the dotted lines in the illustration. Then cut away the eight little triangular pieces that are shaded, and cut through the paper along the dark lines. The second illustration shows the box half folded up, and the reader will have no difficulty in effecting its completion. Before folding up, the reader might cut out the circular piece indicated in the diagram, for a purpose I will now explain.
Take a square piece of sturdy paper and make all the folds along the dotted lines shown in the illustration. Then cut out the eight small triangular pieces that are shaded, and cut along the solid lines. The second illustration shows the box halfway folded, and you should have no trouble finishing it. Before you finish folding, you might want to cut out the circular piece shown in the diagram, for a reason I will now explain.

This box will be found to serve excellently for the production of vortex rings. These rings, Pg 41which were discussed by Von Helmholtz in 1858, are most interesting, and the box (with the hole cut out) will produce them to perfection. Fill the box with tobacco smoke by blowing it gently through the hole. Now, if you hold it horizontally, and softly tap the side that is opposite to the hole, an immense number of perfect rings can be produced from one mouthful of smoke. It is best that there should be no currents of air in the room. People often do not realise that these rings are formed in the air when no smoke is used. The smoke only makes them visible. Now, one of these rings, if properly directed on its course, will travel across the room and put out the flame of a candle, and this feat is much more striking if you can manage to do it without the smoke. Of course, with a little practice, the rings may be blown from the mouth, but the box produces them in much greater perfection, and no skill whatever is required. Lord Kelvin propounded the theory that matter may consist of vortex rings in a fluid that fills all space, and by a development of the hypothesis he was able to explain chemical combination.
This box is great for creating vortex rings. These rings, Pg 41which Von Helmholtz talked about in 1858, are really fascinating, and the box (with the hole cut out) creates them flawlessly. Fill the box with tobacco smoke by gently blowing it through the hole. If you hold it horizontally and softly tap the side opposite the hole, you can produce many perfect rings from just one puff of smoke. It's best if there are no air currents in the room. Many people don't realize that these rings form in the air even without smoke; the smoke just makes them visible. One of these rings, when directed properly, can travel across the room and extinguish a candle flame, which is even more impressive if you can do it without smoke. With some practice, you can blow the rings from your mouth, but the box makes them much better and doesn't require any skill. Lord Kelvin proposed the theory that matter might consist of vortex rings in a fluid that fills all space, and by expanding on this idea, he was able to explain chemical combinations.

Take a circular slice of potato, place it on the table, and see into how large a number of pieces you can divide it with six cuts of a knife. Of course you must not readjust the pieces or pile them after a cut. What is the greatest number of pieces you can make?
Take a round slice of potato, set it on a table, and see how many pieces you can divide it into with six cuts of a knife. You can't rearrange or stack the pieces after making a cut. What’s the maximum number of pieces you can create?

The illustration shows how to make sixteen pieces. This can, of course, be easily beaten.
The illustration shows how to make sixteen pieces. This can, of course, be easily beaten.

Here is a little puzzle that was put to one of the sons of Erin the other day and perplexed him unduly, for it is really quite easy. It will be seen from the illustration that he was shown a sketch of a square pen containing seven pigs. He was asked how he would intersect the pen with three straight fences so as to enclose every pig in a separate sty. In other words, all you have to do is to take your pencil and, with three straight strokes across the square, enclose each pig separately. Nothing could be simpler.
Here’s a little puzzle that was given to one of Erin's sons the other day, and it confused him more than it should have because it’s really quite simple. As shown in the illustration, he was presented with a drawing of a square pen that held seven pigs. He was asked how he would use three straight fences to divide the pen so that each pig is in its own separate section. Essentially, all you need to do is take your pencil and, with three straight lines across the square, separate each pig. It couldn't be easier.
The Irishman complained that the pigs would not keep still while he was putting up the fences. He said that they would all flock together, or one obstinate beast would go into a corner and flock all by himself. It was pointed out to him that for the purposes of the puzzle the pigs were stationary. He answered that Irish pigs are not stationery—they are pork. Being persuaded to make the attempt, he drew three lines, one of which cut through a pig. When it was explained that this is not allowed, he protested Pg 42that a pig was no use until you cut its throat. "Begorra, if it's bacon ye want without cutting your pig, it will be all gammon." We will not do the Irishman the injustice of suggesting that the miserable pun was intentional. However, he failed to solve the puzzle. Can you do it?
The Irishman complained that the pigs wouldn’t stay still while he was putting up the fences. He said they would all gather together, or one stubborn pig would go to a corner and keep to itself. It was pointed out to him that for the puzzle, the pigs were supposed to be stationary. He replied that Irish pigs are not stationary—they're pork. After some persuasion, he drew three lines, one of which went through a pig. When it was explained that this isn’t allowed, he argued that a pig is useless until you cut its throat. "Honestly, if you want bacon without cutting your pig, it will just be a joke." We won’t do the Irishman the injustice of suggesting that the terrible pun was intentional. However, he didn’t solve the puzzle. Can you?

The landowner in the illustration is consulting with his bailiff over a rather puzzling little question. He has a large plan of one of his fields, in which there are eleven trees. Now, he wants to divide the field into just eleven enclosures by means of straight fences, so that every enclosure shall contain one tree as a shelter for his cattle. How is he to do it with as few fences as possible? Take your pencil and draw straight lines across the field until you have marked off the eleven enclosures (and no more), and then see how many fences you require. Of course the fences may cross one another.
The landowner in the illustration is talking with his bailiff about a bit of a tricky question. He has a big plan of one of his fields that has eleven trees. Now, he wants to split the field into exactly eleven enclosures using straight fences, so that each enclosure will have one tree to provide shade for his cattle. How can he do this with the fewest fences possible? Grab your pencil and draw straight lines across the field until you've marked off the eleven enclosures (and no more), then count how many fences you need. Of course, the fences can cross each other.

A wizard placed ten cats inside a magic circle as shown in our illustration, and hypnotized them so that they should remain stationary during his pleasure. He then proposed to draw three circles inside the large one, so that no cat could approach another cat without crossing a Pg 43magic circle. Try to draw the three circles so that every cat has its own enclosure and cannot reach another cat without crossing a line.
A wizard put ten cats inside a magic circle as shown in our illustration and hypnotized them to stay still for his amusement. He then suggested drawing three circles within the large one, so that no cat could get close to another cat without crossing a Pg 43magic circle. Try to draw the three circles so that each cat has its own space and can't reach another cat without crossing a line.
"Speaking of Christmas puddings," said the host, as he glanced at the imposing delicacy at the other end of the table. "I am reminded of the fact that a friend gave me a new puzzle the other day respecting one. Here it is," he added, diving into his breast pocket.
"Speaking of Christmas puddings," said the host, as he looked at the impressive treat at the other end of the table. "I just remembered that a friend gave me a new puzzle the other day related to one. Here it is," he said, pulling it out of his breast pocket.
"'Problem: To find the contents,' I suppose," said the Eton boy.
"'Problem: To find the contents,' I guess," said the Eton boy.
"No; the proof of that is in the eating. I will read you the conditions."
"No; the proof of that is in the tasting. I will read you the terms."

"'Cut the pudding into two parts, each of exactly the same size and shape, without touching any of the plums. The pudding is to be regarded as a flat disc, not as a sphere.'"
"'Slice the pudding into two equal pieces, making sure they are the same size and shape, without disturbing any of the plums. Think of the pudding as a flat disc, not a sphere.'"
"Why should you regard a Christmas pudding as a disc? And why should any reasonable person ever wish to make such an accurate division?" asked the cynic.
"Why should you see a Christmas pudding as a disc? And why would anyone reasonable want to make such a precise division?" asked the cynic.
"It is just a puzzle—a problem in dissection." All in turn had a look at the puzzle, but nobody succeeded in solving it. It is a little difficult unless you are acquainted with the principle involved in the making of such puddings, but easy enough when you know how it is done.
"It’s just a puzzle—a problem to figure out." Everyone took a look at the puzzle, but no one was able to solve it. It’s a bit tricky unless you understand the principle behind making these kinds of puddings, but it’s pretty straightforward once you know how it works.
Many pastimes of great antiquity, such as chess, have so developed and changed down the centuries that their original inventors would scarcely recognize them. This is not the case with Tangrams, a recreation that appears to be at least four thousand years old, that has apparently never been dormant, and that has not been altered or "improved upon" since the legendary Chinaman Tan first cut out the seven pieces shown in Diagram I. If you mark the point B, midway between A and C, on one side of a square of any size, and D, midway between C and E, on an adjoining side, the direction of the cuts is too obvious to need further explanation. Every design in this article is built up from the seven pieces of blackened cardboard. It will at once be understood that the possible combinations are infinite.
Many ancient pastimes, like chess, have developed and changed so much over the centuries that their original inventors wouldn’t recognize them. However, this isn’t true for Tangrams, a game that’s at least four thousand years old, has never gone out of style, and hasn’t been altered or “improved” since the legendary Chinese man Tan first cut out the seven pieces shown in Diagram I. If you mark point B, which is halfway between A and C, on one side of a square of any size, and point D, which is halfway between C and E, on an adjacent side, the direction of the cuts is clear enough that no further explanation is needed. Every design in this article is made from the seven pieces of black cardboard. It’s easy to see that the possible combinations are infinite.

The late Mr. Sam Loyd, of New York, who published a small book of very ingenious designs, possessed the manuscripts of the late Mr. Challenor, who made a long and close study of Tangrams. This gentleman, it is said, records that there were originally seven books of Tangrams, compiled in China two thousand years before the Christian era. These books are so rare that, after forty years' residence in the country, he only succeeded in seeing perfect copies of the first and seventh volumes with fragments of the second. Portions of one of the books, printed in gold leaf upon parchment, were found in Peking by an English soldier and sold for three hundred pounds.
The late Mr. Sam Loyd from New York, who published a small book of very clever designs, had the manuscripts from the late Mr. Challenor, who closely studied Tangrams for a long time. It is said that he noted there were originally seven books of Tangrams compiled in China two thousand years before the Christian era. These books are so rare that, after living in the country for forty years, he only managed to see perfect copies of the first and seventh volumes, along with fragments of the second. Parts of one of the books, printed in gold leaf on parchment, were found in Peking by an English soldier and sold for three hundred pounds.
A few years ago a little book came into my possession, from the library of the late Lewis Carroll, entitled The Fashionable Chinese Puzzle. It contains three hundred and twenty-three Tangram designs, mostly nondescript geometrical figures, to be constructed from the seven pieces. It was "Published by J. and E. Wallis, 42 Skinner Street, and J. Wallis, Jun., Marine Library, Sidmouth" (South Devon). There is no date, but the following note fixes the time of publication pretty closely: "This ingenious contrivance has for some time past been the favourite amusement of the ex-Emperor Napoleon, who, being now in a debilitated state and living very retired, passes many hours a day in thus exercising his patience and ingenuity." The reader will find, as did the great exile, that much amusement, not wholly uninstructive, may be derived from forming the designs of others. He will find many of the illustrations to this article quite easy to build up, and some rather difficult. Every picture may thus be regarded as a puzzle.
A few years ago, I came across a little book from the library of the late Lewis Carroll called The Fashionable Chinese Puzzle. It has three hundred and twenty-three Tangram designs, mostly plain geometric shapes, that can be made using seven pieces. It was "Published by J. and E. Wallis, 42 Skinner Street, and J. Wallis, Jun., Marine Library, Sidmouth" (South Devon). There’s no date, but a note inside gives us a good idea of when it was published: "This clever device has been the favorite pastime of the former Emperor Napoleon, who, now weakened and living a quiet life, spends many hours a day exercising his patience and creativity." The reader will find, just like the famous exile did, that there’s a lot of enjoyment, not entirely without instruction, in creating the designs of others. Some illustrations in this article will be quite easy to put together, while others will be more challenging. Each image can be seen as a puzzle.
But it is another pastime altogether to create new and original designs of a pictorial character, and it is surprising what extraordinary scope the Tangrams afford for producing pictures of real life—angular and often grotesque, it is true, but full of character. I give an example of a recumbent figure (2) that is particularly graceful, and only needs some slight reduction of its angularities to produce an entirely satisfactory outline.
But creating new and original designs with a pictorial style is a whole different hobby, and it’s amazing how much the Tangrams allow for creating images of real life—angular and often strange, it's true, but full of personality. I’ll show you an example of a reclining figure (2) that’s especially graceful and just needs a bit of smoothing out of its angles to create a perfectly satisfying shape.

As I have referred to the author of Alice in Wonderland, I give also my designs of the March Pg 44Hare (3) and the Hatter (4). I also give an attempt at Napoleon (5), and a very excellent Red Indian with his Squaw by Mr. Loyd (6 and 7). A large number of other designs will be found in an article by me in The Strand Magazine for November, 1908.
As I've mentioned the author of Alice in Wonderland, I’m also sharing my designs of the March Pg 44Hare (3) and the Hatter (4). I’m also including my attempt at Napoleon (5), plus a really impressive Red Indian with his Squaw by Mr. Loyd (6 and 7). You can find many other designs in an article I wrote for The Strand Magazine in November 1908.



On the appearance of this magazine article, the late Sir James Murray, the eminent philologist, tried, with that amazing industry that characterized all his work, to trace the word "tangram" to its source. At length he wrote as follows:—"One of my sons is a professor in the Anglo-Chinese college at Tientsin. Through him, his colleagues, and his students, I was able to make inquiries as to the alleged Tan among Chinese scholars. Our Chinese professor here (Oxford) also took an interest in the matter and obtained information from the secretary of the Chinese Legation in London, who is a very eminent representative of the Chinese literati."
On the release of this magazine article, the late Sir James Murray, the well-known philologist, tried, with the incredible dedication that defined all his work, to trace the word "tangram" back to its origins. Eventually, he wrote the following:—"One of my sons is a professor at the Anglo-Chinese college in Tientsin. Through him, I was able to ask his colleagues and students about the supposed Tan among Chinese scholars. Our Chinese professor here at Oxford also took an interest in the topic and got information from the secretary of the Chinese Legation in London, who is a very distinguished representative of the Chinese intellectuals."
"The result has been to show that the man Tan, the god Tan, and the 'Book of Tan' are entirely unknown to Chinese literature, history, or tradition. By most of the learned men the name, or allegation of the existence, of these had never been heard of. The puzzle is, of course, well known. It is called in Chinese ch'i ch'iao t'u; literally, 'seven-ingenious-plan' or 'ingenious-puzzle figure of seven pieces.' No name approaching 'tangram,' or even 'tan,' occurs in Chinese, and the only suggestions for the latter were the Chinese t'an, 'to extend'; or t'ang, Cantonese dialect for 'Chinese.' It was suggested that probably some American or Englishman who knew a little Chinese or Cantonese, wanting a name for the puzzle, might concoct one out of one of these words and the European ending 'gram.' I should say the name 'tangram' was probably invented by an American some little time before 1864 and after 1847, but I cannot find it in print before the 1864 edition of Webster. I have therefore had to deal very shortly with the word in the dictionary, telling what it is applied to and what conjectures or guesses have been made at the name, and giving a few quotations, one from your own article, which has enabled me to make more of the subject than I could otherwise have done."
The outcome has shown that the man Tan, the god Tan, and the 'Book of Tan' are completely unknown in Chinese literature, history, or tradition. Most scholars have never even heard the name or the claim of their existence. This mystery is, of course, well-known. It's called in Chinese ch'i ch'iao t'u; literally, 'seven-ingenious-plan' or 'ingenious-puzzle figure of seven pieces.' There's no name similar to 'tangram' or even 'tan' in Chinese, and the only possible meanings for the latter are the Chinese t'an, meaning 'to extend'; or t'ang, which is the Cantonese dialect for 'Chinese.' It's been suggested that perhaps some American or English person who knew a bit of Chinese or Cantonese, in search of a name for the puzzle, might have created one from one of these words combined with the European ending 'gram.' I would say the name 'tangram' was likely created by an American sometime after 1847 and before 1864, but I can't find it in print before the 1864 edition of Webster. Therefore, I've had to briefly address the word in the dictionary, explaining what it's used for and what guesses have been made about the name, and including a few quotes, one from your own article, which has allowed me to expand on the topic more than I could have otherwise.
Several correspondents have informed me that they possess, or had possessed, specimens of the old Chinese books. An American gentleman writes to me as follows:—"I have in my possession a book made of tissue paper, printed in black (with a Chinese inscription on the front page), containing over three hundred designs, which belongs to the box of 'tangrams,' which I also own. The blocks are seven in number, made of mother-of-pearl, highly polished and finely engraved on either side. These are contained in a rosewood box 21/8 in. square. My great uncle, ——, was one of the first missionaries to visit China. This box and book, along with quite a collection of other relics, were sent to my grandfather and descended to myself."
Several people have told me that they have, or had, old Chinese books. An American man wrote to me saying: "I have a book made of tissue paper, printed in black (with a Chinese inscription on the front page), containing over three hundred designs, which is part of the 'tangrams' set that I also own. The set includes seven blocks made of highly polished mother-of-pearl, finely engraved on both sides. These are stored in a rosewood box that measures 21/8 inches square. My great uncle, ——, was one of the first missionaries to visit China. This box and book, along with a large collection of other relics, were sent to my grandfather and then passed down to me."

My correspondent kindly supplied me with rubbings of the Tangrams, from which it is clear that they are cut in the exact proportions that I have indicated. I reproduce the Chinese inscription (8) for this reason. The owner of the book informs me that he has submitted it to a number of Chinamen in the United States and offered as much as a dollar for a translation. But they all steadfastly refused to read the words, offering the lame excuse that the inscription is Japanese. Natives of Japan, however, insist that it is Chinese. Is there something occult and esoteric about Tangrams, that Pg 45it is so difficult to lift the veil? Perhaps this page will come under the eye of some reader acquainted with the Chinese language, who will supply the required translation, which may, or may not, throw a little light on this curious question.
My correspondent kindly sent me rubbings of the Tangrams, which clearly show they are cut in the exact proportions I've stated. I’m including the Chinese inscription (8) for this reason. The book's owner tells me he reached out to several Chinese individuals in the United States and even offered a dollar for a translation. However, they all firmly declined to read the words, giving the weak excuse that the inscription is Japanese. But Japanese natives insist that it’s Chinese. Is there something mysterious and hidden about Tangrams, that Pg 45makes it so hard to uncover? Maybe someone reading this page knows Chinese and can provide the translation that might shed some light on this intriguing question.

By using several sets of Tangrams at the same time we may construct more ambitious pictures. I was advised by a friend not to send my picture, "A Game of Billiards" (9), to the Academy. He assured me that it would not be accepted because the "judges are so hide-bound by convention." Perhaps he was right, and it will be more appreciated by Post-impressionists and Cubists. The players are considering a very delicate stroke at the top of the table. Of course, the two men, the table, and the clock are formed from four sets of Tangrams. My second picture is named "The Orchestra" (10), and it was designed for the decoration of a large hall of music. Here we have the conductor, the pianist, the fat little cornet-player, the left-handed player of the double-bass, whose attitude is life-like, though he does stand at an unusual distance from his instrument, and the drummer-boy, with his imposing music-stand. The dog at the back of the pianoforte is not howling: he is an appreciative listener.
By using several sets of Tangrams at the same time, we can create more ambitious pictures. A friend advised me not to submit my piece, "A Game of Billiards" (9), to the Academy. He assured me it wouldn't be accepted because the "judges are so stuck in their ways." Maybe he was right, and it will be better appreciated by Post-impressionists and Cubists. The players are contemplating a very delicate shot at the top of the table. Of course, the two men, the table, and the clock are made from four sets of Tangrams. My second piece is called "The Orchestra" (10), and it was designed to decorate a large music hall. Here, we have the conductor, the pianist, the chubby cornet player, the left-handed double-bass player who has a lifelike pose despite standing at an unusual distance from his instrument, and the drummer boy with his impressive music stand. The dog behind the piano isn't howling; he's just an appreciative listener.


One remarkable thing about these Tangram pictures is that they suggest to the imagination such a lot that is not really there. Who, for example, can look for a few minutes at Lady Belinda (11) and the Dutch girl (12) without soon feeling the haughty expression in the one case and the arch look in the other? Then look again at the stork (13), and see how it is suggested to the mind that the leg is actually much more slender than any one of the pieces employed. It is really an optical illusion. Again, notice in the case of the yacht (14) how, by leaving that little angular point at the top, a complete mast is suggested. If you place your Tangrams together on white paper so that they do not quite touch one another, in some cases the effect is improved by the white lines; in other cases it is almost destroyed.
One amazing thing about these Tangram pictures is how much they provoke the imagination, even with what isn't actually there. Who, for instance, can stare at Lady Belinda (11) and the Dutch girl (12) for a few minutes without soon sensing the haughty expression on one and the mischievous look on the other? Then look again at the stork (13) and notice how the mind suggests that the leg is actually much slimmer than any of the pieces used. It's really an optical illusion. Also, take a look at the yacht (14) and see how that little angular point at the top hints at a complete mast. If you arrange your Tangrams on white paper so that they don't quite touch each other, sometimes the white lines enhance the effect, while in other cases it almost ruins it.

Finally, I give an example from the many curious paradoxes that one happens upon in manipulating Tangrams. I show designs of Pg 46two dignified individuals (15 and 16) who appear to be exactly alike, except for the fact that one has a foot and the other has not. Now, both of these figures are made from the same seven Tangrams. Where does the second man get his foot from?
Finally, I’ll share an example from the many intriguing paradoxes you discover while working with Tangrams. I present designs of Pg 46two dignified figures (15 and 16) who look exactly the same, except one has a foot and the other doesn’t. Both of these figures are created from the same seven Tangrams. So where does the second man get his foot from?

PATCHWORK PUZZLES.
"Of shreds and patches."—Hamlet, iii. 4.
"Of scraps and pieces."—Hamlet, iii. 4.

The above represents a square of brocade. A lady wishes to cut it in four pieces so that two pieces will form one perfectly square cushion top, and the remaining two pieces another square cushion top. How is she to do it? Of course, she can only cut along the lines that divide the twenty-five squares, and the pattern must "match" properly without any irregularity whatever in the design of the material. There is only one way of doing it. Can you find it?
The above shows a square of brocade. A woman wants to cut it into four pieces so that two pieces can make one perfectly square cushion top, and the other two pieces will make another square cushion top. How should she do it? She can only cut along the lines that separate the twenty-five squares, and the pattern must "match" perfectly without any irregularities in the design of the fabric. There's only one way to do it. Can you find it?

A Lady had a square piece of bunting with two lions on it, of which the illustration is an exactly reproduced reduction. She wished to cut the stuff into pieces that would fit together and form two square banners with a lion on each banner. She discovered that this could be done in as few as four pieces. How did she manage it? Of course, to cut the British Lion would be an unpardonable offence, so you must be careful that no cut passes through any portion of either of them. Ladies are informed that no allowance whatever has to be made for "turnings," and no part of the material may be wasted. It is quite a simple little dissection puzzle if rightly attacked. Remember that the banners have to be perfect squares, though they need not be both of the same size.
A lady had a square piece of fabric with two lions on it, which is shown in the illustration as a reduced replica. She wanted to cut the material into pieces that would fit together to create two square banners, each featuring a lion. She found that this could be done in as few as four pieces. How did she accomplish it? Of course, cutting through the British Lion would be completely unacceptable, so you must ensure that no cut goes through either lion. Ladies should note that no allowance needs to be made for "turnings," and no part of the material can be wasted. It’s quite a simple little puzzle if approached correctly. Remember that the banners must be perfect squares, although they don’t have to be the same size.
Mrs. Smiley's expression of pleasure was sincere when her six granddaughters sent to her, as a Christmas present, a very pretty patchwork quilt, which they had made with their own hands. It was constructed of square pieces of silk material, all of one size, and as they made a large quilt with fourteen of these little squares on each side, it is obvious that just 196 pieces had been stitched into it. Now, the six granddaughters each contributed a part of the work in the form of a perfect square (all six portions being different in size), but in order to join them up to form the square quilt it was necessary that the work of one girl should be unpicked into three separate pieces. Can you show how the joins might have been made? Of course, no portion can be turned over.
Mrs. Smiley's joy was genuine when her six granddaughters gifted her a beautiful patchwork quilt for Christmas, which they had all made themselves. It was made up of square pieces of silk, all the same size, and since they crafted a large quilt with fourteen of these squares on each side, it totaled 196 pieces. Each granddaughter contributed a part of the work in the form of a perfect square (with each of the six pieces being a different size), but to put them together as a complete square quilt, one girl’s work needed to be taken apart into three separate pieces. Can you illustrate how the joins might have been made? Of course, no piece can be flipped over.


It will be seen that in this case the square patchwork quilt is built up of 169 pieces. The puzzle is to find the smallest possible number of square portions of which the quilt could be composed and show how they might be joined together. Or, to put it the reverse way, divide the quilt into as few square portions as possible by merely cutting the stitches.
It will be clear that in this case, the square patchwork quilt is made up of 169 pieces. The challenge is to find the smallest number of square sections that the quilt could be made from and show how they can be put together. Alternatively, you could look at it the other way: divide the quilt into as few square sections as possible by just cutting the stitches.

I happened to be paying a call at the house of a lady, when I took up from a table two lovely squares of brocade. They were beautiful specimens of Eastern workmanship—both of the same design, a delicate chequered pattern.
I happened to be visiting a woman’s house when I picked up two beautiful squares of brocade from a table. They were stunning examples of Eastern craftsmanship—both had the same design, a delicate checkered pattern.
"Are they not exquisite?" said my friend. "They were brought to me by a cousin who has just returned from India. Now, I want you Pg 48to give me a little assistance. You see, I have decided to join them together so as to make one large square cushion-cover. How should I do this so as to mutilate the material as little as possible? Of course I propose to make my cuts only along the lines that divide the little chequers."
"Are they not beautiful?" my friend said. "They were brought to me by a cousin who just got back from India. Now, I need your help Pg 48. I've decided to stitch them together to create one large square cushion cover. How can I do this without damaging the fabric too much? I plan to make my cuts only along the lines that separate the little squares."

I cut the two squares in the manner desired into four pieces that would fit together and form another larger square, taking care that the pattern should match properly, and when I had finished I noticed that two of the pieces were of exactly the same area; that is, each of the two contained the same number of chequers. Can you show how the cuts were made in accordance with these conditions?
I cut the two squares as needed into four pieces that could fit together to form a larger square, making sure the pattern matched properly. When I finished, I realized that two of the pieces were exactly the same size; each of the two had the same number of checker patterns. Can you show how the cuts were made to meet these conditions?

A lady was presented, by two of her girl friends, with the pretty pieces of silk patchwork shown in our illustration. It will be seen that both pieces are made up of squares all of the same size—one 12x12 and the other 5x5. She proposes to join them together and make one square patchwork quilt, 13x13, but, of course, she will not cut any of the material—merely cut the stitches where necessary and join together again. What perplexes her is this. A friend assures her that there need be no more than four pieces in all to join up for the new quilt. Could you show her how this little needlework puzzle is to be solved in so few pieces?
A woman was given, by two of her girlfriends, the cute silk patchwork pieces shown in our illustration. You can see that both pieces consist of squares of the same size—one is 12x12 and the other 5x5. She plans to combine them to create one square patchwork quilt, 13x13, but she won’t cut any of the material—just remove the stitches where needed and join them back together. What confuses her is this: a friend tells her that she only needs four pieces in total to assemble the new quilt. Can you help her figure out how to solve this little sewing puzzle with so few pieces?

The diagram herewith represents two separate pieces of linoleum. The chequered pattern is not repeated at the back, so that the pieces cannot be turned over. The puzzle is to cut the two squares into four pieces so that they shall fit together and form one perfect square 10×10, so that the pattern shall properly Pg 49match, and so that the larger piece shall have as small a portion as possible cut from it.
The diagram here shows two separate pieces of linoleum. The chequered pattern isn't repeated on the back, which means the pieces can't be flipped over. The challenge is to cut the two squares into four pieces so they fit together to form one perfect 10×10 square, ensuring the pattern matches properly Pg 49 and that the larger piece has as little cut from it as possible.

Can you cut this piece of linoleum into four pieces that will fit together and form a perfect square? Of course the cuts may only be made along the lines.
Can you cut this piece of linoleum into four pieces that fit together to make a perfect square? The cuts can only be made along the lines.
VARIOUS GEOMETRICAL PUZZLES.
"So various are the tastes of men."
MARK AKENSIDE.
"The tastes of people are so diverse."
MARK AKENSIDE.
This puzzle is not difficult, but it will be found entertaining to discover the simple rule for its solution. I have a rectangular cardboard box. The top has an area of 120 square inches, the side 96 square inches, and the end 80 square inches. What are the exact dimensions of the box?
This puzzle isn't hard, but it will be fun to figure out the simple rule for solving it. I have a rectangular cardboard box. The top has an area of 120 square inches, the side has an area of 96 square inches, and the end has an area of 80 square inches. What are the exact dimensions of the box?
Two men broke into a church tower one night to steal the bell-ropes. The two ropes passed through holes in the wooden ceiling high above them, and they lost no time in climbing to the top. Then one man drew his knife and cut the rope above his head, in consequence of which he fell to the floor and was badly injured. His fellow-thief called out that it served him right for being such a fool. He said that he should have done as he was doing, upon which he cut the rope below the place at which he held on. Then, to his dismay, he found that he was in no better plight, for, after hanging on as long as his strength lasted, he was compelled to let go and fall beside his comrade. Here they were both found the next morning with their limbs broken. How far did they fall? One of the ropes when they found it was just touching the floor, and when you pulled the end to the wall, keeping the rope taut, it touched a point just three inches above the floor, and the wall was four feet from the rope when it hung at rest. How long was the rope from floor to ceiling?
Two guys broke into a church tower one night to steal the bell ropes. The two ropes went through holes in the wooden ceiling high above them, and they wasted no time climbing to the top. Then one guy pulled out his knife and cut the rope above his head, which caused him to fall to the floor and get seriously injured. His partner yelled that it served him right for being such an idiot. He said he should have done what he was doing, and then he cut the rope below where he was hanging on. To his shock, he found himself in no better situation, as after hanging on as long as he could, he had to let go and fell next to his comrade. The next morning, they were both found with broken limbs. How far did they fall? One of the ropes, when they found it, was just touching the floor, and when you pulled the end to the wall, keeping the rope tight, it touched a spot just three inches above the floor, and the wall was four feet away from the rope when it hung freely. How long was the rope from floor to ceiling?
Readers will recognize the diagram as a familiar friend of their youth. A man possessed a square-shaped estate. He bequeathed to his widow the quarter of it that is shaded off. The remainder was to be divided equitably amongst his four sons, so that each should receive land of exactly the same area and exactly similar in shape. We are shown how this was done. But the remainder of the story is not so generally known. In the centre of the estate was a well, indicated by the dark spot, and Benjamin, Charles, and David complained that the division was not "equitable," since Alfred had access to this well, while they could not reach it without trespassing on somebody else's land. The puzzle is to show how the estate is to be apportioned so that each son shall have land of the same shape and area, and each have access to the well without going off his own land.
Readers will recognize the diagram as a familiar figure from their childhood. A man owned a square-shaped piece of land. He left a quarter of it, marked in the shade, to his widow. The rest was to be divided fairly among his four sons so that each would receive an equal area of land, shaped the same way. We can see how this was accomplished. However, the rest of the story isn't as well-known. In the center of the property was a well, shown by the dark spot, and Benjamin, Charles, and David argued that the division wasn't "fair," since Alfred had access to this well, while they had to cross into someone else's property to get to it. The challenge is to figure out how to divide the estate so that each son has a piece of land with the same shape and size, and all have access to the well without stepping on someone else's land.

As I sat in a railway carriage I noticed at the other end of the compartment a worthy squire, whom I knew by sight, engaged in conversation with another passenger, who was evidently a friend of his.
As I sat in a train car, I saw at the other end of the compartment a respectable squire, someone I recognized, chatting with another passenger, who was clearly a friend of his.
"How far have you to drive to your place from the railway station?" asked the stranger.
"How far do you have to drive to get to your place from the train station?" asked the stranger.
"Well," replied the squire, "if I get out at Appleford, it is just the same distance as if I go to Bridgefield, another fifteen miles farther on; and if I changed at Appleford and went thirteen miles from there to Carterton, it would still be the same distance. You see, I am equidistant from the three stations, so I get a good choice of trains."
"Well," replied the squire, "if I get off at Appleford, it's the same distance as if I go to Bridgefield, which is another fifteen miles further on; and if I switch at Appleford and travel thirteen miles from there to Carterton, it would still be the same distance. You see, I'm equidistant from the three stations, so I have a good selection of trains."
Now I happened to know that Bridgefield is just fourteen miles from Carterton, so I amused myself in working out the exact distance that the squire had to drive home whichever station he got out at. What was the distance?
Now I knew that Bridgefield is only fourteen miles from Carterton, so I entertained myself by calculating the exact distance the squire had to drive home, no matter which station he got out at. What was the distance?
Professor Rackbrain tells me that he was recently smoking a friendly pipe under a tree in the garden of a country acquaintance. The garden was enclosed by four straight walls, and his friend informed him that he had measured these and found the lengths to be 80, 45, 100, and 63 yards respectively. "Then," said the professor, "we can calculate the exact area of the garden." "Impossible," his host replied, Pg 50"because you can get an infinite number of different shapes with those four sides." "But you forget," Rackbrane said, with a twinkle in his eye, "that you told me once you had planted this tree equidistant from all the four corners of the garden." Can you work out the garden's area?
Professor Rackbrain tells me that he was recently enjoying a friendly smoke under a tree in the garden of a country friend. The garden was surrounded by four straight walls, and his friend mentioned that he had measured these walls and found their lengths to be 80, 45, 100, and 63 yards, respectively. "Then," said the professor, "we can figure out the exact area of the garden." "That's impossible," his host replied, Pg 50 "because you can create an infinite number of different shapes with those four sides." "But you forget," Rackbrain said, with a twinkle in his eye, "that you once told me you planted this tree equidistant from all four corners of the garden." Can you calculate the garden's area?
If you hold the page horizontally and give it a quick rotary motion while looking at the centre of the spiral, it will appear to revolve. Perhaps a good many readers are acquainted with this little optical illusion. But the puzzle is to show how I was able to draw this spiral with so much exactitude without using anything but a pair of compasses and the sheet of paper on which the diagram was made. How would you proceed in such circumstances?
If you hold the page horizontally and give it a quick twist while staring at the center of the spiral, it will seem to spin. Many readers might be familiar with this optical illusion. The challenge, though, is to explain how I was able to draw this spiral so precisely using only a compass and the piece of paper on which the diagram was created. How would you go about it in this situation?

Can you draw a perfect oval on a sheet of paper with one sweep of the compasses? It is one of the easiest things in the world when you know how.
Can you draw a perfect oval on a piece of paper with one sweep of the compass? It's one of the simplest things in the world once you know how.
At a celebration of the national festival of St. George's Day I was contemplating the familiar banner of the patron saint of our country. We all know the red cross on a white ground, shown in our illustration. This is the banner of St. George. The banner of St. Andrew (Scotland) is a white "St. Andrew's Cross" on a blue ground. That of St. Patrick (Ireland) is a similar cross in red on a white ground. These three are united in one to form our Union Jack.
At a celebration of the national festival of St. George's Day, I was thinking about the familiar banner of the patron saint of our country. We all recognize the red cross on a white background, as shown in our illustration. This is the banner of St. George. The banner of St. Andrew (Scotland) features a white "St. Andrew's Cross" on a blue background. St. Patrick's banner (Ireland) is a similar cross in red on a white background. These three are combined to create our Union Jack.
Now on looking at St. George's banner it occurred to me that the following question would make a simple but pretty little puzzle. Supposing the flag measures four feet by three feet, how wide must the arm of the cross be if it is required that there shall be used just the same quantity of red and of white bunting?
Now, when I looked at St. George's flag, I thought that the following question would create a simple yet charming puzzle. If the flag is four feet by three feet, how wide does the arm of the cross need to be so that the same amount of red and white bunting is used?

A boy tied a clothes line from the top of each of two poles to the base of the other. He then proposed to his father the following question. As one pole was exactly seven feet above the ground and the other exactly five feet, what was the height from the ground where the two cords crossed one another?
A boy tied a clothesline from the top of each of two poles to the base of the other. He then asked his father this question: since one pole was exactly seven feet above the ground and the other was exactly five feet, what was the height from the ground where the two cords crossed each other?
Here is a little pastoral puzzle that the reader may, at first sight, be led into supposing is very profound, involving deep calculations. He may even say that it is quite impossible to give any answer unless we are told something definite as to the distances. And yet it is really quite "childlike and bland."
Here’s a little pastoral puzzle that the reader might, at first glance, think is very deep, involving complex calculations. They might even argue that it’s impossible to provide any answer without knowing specific details about the distances. And yet, it’s actually quite "simple and innocent."

Pg 51In the corner of a field is seen a milkmaid milking a cow, and on the other side of the field is the dairy where the extract has to be deposited. But it has been noticed that the young woman always goes down to the river with her pail before returning to the dairy. Here the suspicious reader will perhaps ask why she pays these visits to the river. I can only reply that it is no business of ours. The alleged milk is entirely for local consumption.
Pg 51In the corner of a field, you can see a milkmaid milking a cow, and on the other side of the field is the dairy where the milk is supposed to be delivered. However, it’s been observed that the young woman always heads down to the river with her bucket before going back to the dairy. At this point, some curious readers might wonder why she makes these trips to the river. I can only say that it’s not our concern. The milk is meant entirely for local use.
"Where are you going to, my pretty maid?"
"Down to the river, sir," she said.
"I'll not choose your dairy, my pretty maid."
"Nobody axed you, sir," she said.
"Where are you going, my beautiful girl?"
"To the river, sir," she replied.
"I'm not going to choose what you do, my lovely girl."
"Nobody asked you, sir," she stated.
If one had any curiosity in the matter, such an independent spirit would entirely disarm one. So we will pass from the point of commercial morality to the subject of the puzzle.
If anyone was curious about the situation, such an independent spirit would completely disarm them. So, let's move on from the topic of commercial morality to the subject of the puzzle.
Draw a line from the milking-stool down to the river and thence to the door of the dairy, which shall indicate the shortest possible route for the milkmaid. That is all. It is quite easy to indicate the exact spot on the bank of the river to which she should direct her steps if she wants as short a walk as possible. Can you find that spot?
Draw a line from the milking stool down to the river and then to the door of the dairy, showing the shortest possible route for the milkmaid. That’s all. It’s pretty simple to pinpoint the exact spot on the riverbank where she should head if she wants the quickest walk. Can you find that spot?

A stonemason was engaged the other day in cutting out a round ball for the purpose of some architectural decoration, when a smart schoolboy came upon the scene.
A stonemason was busy the other day carving a round ball for some architectural decoration when a clever schoolboy stumbled upon the scene.
"Look here," said the mason, "you seem to be a sharp youngster, can you tell me this? If I placed this ball on the level ground, how many other balls of the same size could I lay around it (also on the ground) so that every ball should touch this one?"
"Hey there," said the mason, "you look like a clever kid. Can you help me with this? If I put this ball on flat ground, how many other balls of the same size could I place around it (also on the ground) so that each of them touches this one?"
The boy at once gave the correct answer, and then put this little question to the mason:—
The boy immediately provided the correct answer and then asked the mason this little question:—
"If the surface of that ball contained just as many square feet as its volume contained cubic feet, what would be the length of its diameter?"
"If the surface area of that ball had the same number of square feet as its volume had cubic feet, what would the length of its diameter be?"
The stonemason could not give an answer. Could you have replied correctly to the mason's and the boy's questions?
The stonemason couldn't come up with an answer. Could you have answered the mason's and the boy's questions correctly?

I was on a visit to one of the large towns of Yorkshire. While walking to the railway station on the day of my departure a man thrust a hand-bill upon me, and I took this into the railway carriage and read it at my leisure. It informed me that three Yorkshire neighbouring estates were to be offered for sale. Each estate was square in shape, and they joined one another at their corners, just as shown in the diagram. Estate A contains exactly 370 acres, B contains 116 acres, and C 74 acres.
I was visiting one of the big towns in Yorkshire. While walking to the train station on the day I was leaving, a man shoved a flyer into my hands, and I took it into the train carriage and read it at my convenience. It told me that three neighboring estates in Yorkshire were going up for sale. Each estate was square-shaped, and they connected at their corners, just like the diagram shows. Estate A has exactly 370 acres, B has 116 acres, and C has 74 acres.
Now, the little triangular bit of land enclosed by the three square estates was not offered for sale, and, for no reason in particular, I became curious as to the area of that piece. How many acres did it contain?
Now, the small triangular piece of land surrounded by the three square estates wasn’t for sale, and for no specific reason, I became curious about the size of that piece. How many acres did it have?

I will now present another land problem. The demonstration of the answer that I shall give will, I think, be found both interesting and easy of comprehension.
I will now present another land issue. I believe the explanation I provide will be both interesting and easy to understand.

Here is an easy geometrical puzzle. The crescent is formed by two circles, and C is the centre of the larger circle. The width of the crescent between B and D is 9 inches, and between E and F 5 inches. What are the diameters of the two circles?
Here is an easy geometry puzzle. The crescent is made up of two circles, with C being the center of the larger circle. The width of the crescent between B and D is 9 inches, and between E and F it is 5 inches. What are the diameters of the two circles?

There was a small lake, around which four poor men built their cottages. Four rich men afterwards built their mansions, as shown in the illustration, and they wished to have the lake to themselves, so they instructed a builder to put up the shortest possible wall that would exclude the cottagers, but give themselves free access to the lake. How was the wall to be built?
There was a small lake, around which four poor men built their cottages. Later, four rich men constructed their mansions, as shown in the illustration, and they wanted the lake just for themselves. So, they hired a builder to put up the shortest wall possible that would keep the cottagers out while allowing them free access to the lake. How was the wall supposed to be built?
It is a curious fact that the answers always given to some of the best-known puzzles that appear in every little book of fireside recreations that has been published for the last fifty or a hundred years are either quite unsatisfactory or clearly wrong. Yet nobody ever seems to detect their faults. Here is an example:—A farmer had a pen made of fifty hurdles, capable of holding a hundred sheep only. Supposing he wanted to make it sufficiently large to hold double that number, how many additional hurdles must he have?
It’s interesting that the answers typically provided for some of the most popular puzzles found in every book of casual pastimes published over the last fifty to a hundred years are either completely unsatisfactory or obviously incorrect. Yet, no one seems to notice their mistakes. Here’s an example: A farmer had a pen made of fifty hurdles that could hold a hundred sheep. If he wanted to make it large enough to hold double that number, how many more hurdles would he need?

A speculative country builder has a circular field, on which he has erected four cottages, as shown in the illustration. The field is surrounded by a brick wall, and the owner undertook to put up three other brick walls, so that the neighbours should not be overlooked by each other, but the four tenants insist that there shall be no favouritism, and that each shall have exactly the same length of wall space for his wall fruit trees. The puzzle is to show how the three walls may be built so that each tenant shall have the same area of ground, and precisely the same length of wall.
A country builder has a circular field where he built four cottages, as shown in the illustration. The field is surrounded by a brick wall, and the owner promised to put up three more brick walls so that the neighbors wouldn’t overlook each other. However, the four tenants insist that there should be no favoritism and that each should have the same length of wall space for their wall fruit trees. The challenge is to figure out how to construct the three walls so that each tenant has the same area of land and exactly the same length of wall.
Of course, each garden must be entirely enclosed by its walls, and it must be possible to prove that each garden has exactly the same length of wall. If the puzzle is properly solved no figures are necessary.
Of course, each garden has to be completely enclosed by its walls, and it must be possible to demonstrate that each garden has exactly the same length of wall. If the puzzle is solved correctly, no figures are needed.
Lady Belinda is an enthusiastic gardener. In the illustration she is depicted in the act of worrying out a pleasant little problem which I will relate. One of her gardens is oblong in shape, enclosed by a high holly hedge, and she is turning it into a rosary for the cultivation of Pg 53some of her choicest roses. She wants to devote exactly half of the area of the garden to the flowers, in one large bed, and the other half to be a path going all round it of equal breadth throughout. Such a garden is shown in the diagram at the foot of the picture. How is she to mark out the garden under these simple conditions? She has only a tape, the length of the garden, to do it with, and, as the holly hedge is so thick and dense, she must make all her measurements inside. Lady Belinda did not know the exact dimensions of the garden, and, as it was not necessary for her to know, I also give no dimensions. It is quite a simple task no matter what the size or proportions of the garden may be. Yet how many lady gardeners would know just how to proceed? The tape may be quite plain—that is, it need not be a graduated measure.
Lady Belinda is a passionate gardener. In the illustration, she's shown tackling a charming little challenge that I’ll explain. One of her gardens is rectangular, surrounded by a tall holly hedge, and she’s transforming it into a space for growing some of her favorite roses. She intends to dedicate exactly half of the garden area to the flowers in one large bed, while the other half will be a path running all the way around with equal width. A diagram of such a garden is displayed at the bottom of the picture. How is she supposed to outline the garden under these simple conditions? She only has a tape measure, the length of the garden, to use, and since the holly hedge is so thick and dense, she has to make all her measurements from inside. Lady Belinda didn’t know the exact dimensions of the garden, and since it wasn’t necessary for her to know, I won’t provide any measurements. It’s quite a straightforward task regardless of the size or shape of the garden. But how many lady gardeners would really know how to go about it? The tape measure can be quite ordinary—that is, it doesn’t need to be marked with measurements.


Here is a little problem that everybody should know how to solve. The goat is placed in a half-acre meadow, that is in shape an equilateral triangle. It is tethered to a post at one corner of the field. What should be the length of the tether (to the nearest inch) in order that the goat shall be able to eat just half the grass in the field? It is assumed that the goat can feed to the end of the tether.
Here’s a little problem that everyone should know how to solve. A goat is placed in a half-acre meadow that is shaped like an equilateral triangle. It’s tethered to a post at one corner of the field. What should be the length of the tether (to the nearest inch) so that the goat can eat just half the grass in the field? It’s assumed that the goat can reach all the way to the end of the tether.
It is curious how an added condition or restriction will sometimes convert an absurdly easy puzzle into an interesting and perhaps difficult one. I remember buying in the street many years ago a little mechanical puzzle that had a tremendous sale at the time. It consisted of a medal with holes in it, and the puzzle was to work a ring with a gap in it from hole to hole until it was finally detached. As I was walking along the street I very soon acquired the trick of taking off the ring with one hand while holding the puzzle in my pocket. A friend to whom I showed the little feat set about accomplishing it himself, and when I met him some days afterwards he exhibited his proficiency in the art. But he was a little taken aback when I then took the puzzle from him and, while simply holding the medal between the finger and thumb of one hand, by a series of little shakes and jerks caused the ring, without my even touching it, to fall off upon the floor. The following little poser will probably prove a rather tough nut for a great many readers, simply on account of the restricted conditions:—
It's interesting how adding a condition or restriction can sometimes turn an absurdly simple puzzle into a challenging one. I remember buying a small mechanical puzzle on the street many years ago that was really popular at the time. It was a medal with holes in it, and the puzzle was to maneuver a ring with a gap from hole to hole until it came off completely. As I walked down the street, I quickly figured out how to get the ring off with one hand while keeping the puzzle in my pocket. A friend I showed this trick to tried to do it himself, and when I ran into him a few days later, he proudly demonstrated his skill. But he was a bit surprised when I took the puzzle from him and, simply by holding the medal between my fingers, made the ring fall off onto the floor with a series of little shakes and jerks, without even touching it. The following little puzzle will probably be quite tough for many readers, just because of the restrictive conditions:—
Show how to find exactly the middle of any straight line by means of the compasses only. You are not allowed to use any ruler, pencil, or other article—only the compasses; and no trick or dodge, such as folding the paper, will be permitted. You must simply use the compasses in the ordinary legitimate way.
Show how to find the exact middle of any straight line using only a compass. You can't use a ruler, pencil, or any other tools—just the compass; and no tricks or shortcuts like folding the paper are allowed. You must simply use the compass in the standard way.
I have eight sticks, four of them being exactly half the length of the others. I lay every one of these on the table, so that they enclose three squares, all of the same size. How do I do it? There must be no loose ends hanging over.
I have eight sticks, four of which are exactly half the length of the others. I place each one of them on the table, so that they form three squares, all the same size. How do I do this? There can't be any loose ends hanging over.
Here is a puzzle by Pappus, who lived at Alexandria about the end of the third century. It is the fifth proposition in the eighth book of his Mathematical Collections. I give it in the form that I presented it some years ago under the title "Papa's Puzzle," just to see how many readers would discover that it was by Pappus himself. "The little maid's papa has taken two different-sized rectangular pieces of cardboard, and has clipped off a triangular piece from one of them, so that when it is suspended by a thread from the point A it hangs with the long side perfectly horizontal, as shown in the illustration. He has perplexed the child by asking her to find the point A on the other card, so as to produce a similar result when cut and suspended by a thread." Of course, the point must not be Pg 54found by trial clippings. A curious and pretty point is involved in this setting of the puzzle. Can the reader discover it?
Here’s a puzzle by Pappus, who lived in Alexandria around the end of the third century. It’s the fifth proposition in the eighth book of his Mathematical Collections. I’m sharing it in the form I used a few years ago under the title "Papa's Puzzle," just to see how many readers would realize it was by Pappus himself. "The little girl’s dad has taken two differently sized rectangular pieces of cardboard and has cut off a triangular piece from one of them, so that when it’s suspended from point A by a thread, it hangs perfectly horizontal, as shown in the illustration. He has challenged the child to find point A on the other card so it will hang the same way when cut and suspended by a thread." Of course, the point shouldn’t be Pg 54found by trying various cuts. There’s a neat and interesting point to this version of the puzzle. Can the reader figure it out?

While accompanying my friend Professor Highflite during a scientific kite-flying competition on the South Downs of Sussex I was led into a little calculation that ought to interest my readers. The Professor was paying out the wire to which his kite was attached from a winch on which it had been rolled into a perfectly spherical form. This ball of wire was just two feet in diameter, and the wire had a diameter of one-hundredth of an inch. What was the length of the wire?
While I was with my friend Professor Highflite at a scientific kite-flying competition in the South Downs of Sussex, I got into a little calculation that should interest my readers. The Professor was unwinding the wire attached to his kite from a winch where it had been rolled into a perfectly spherical shape. This ball of wire was two feet in diameter, and the wire itself was one-hundredth of an inch in diameter. What was the length of the wire?
Now, a simple little question like this that everybody can perfectly understand will puzzle many people to answer in any way. Let us see whether, without going into any profound mathematical calculations, we can get the answer roughly—say, within a mile of what is correct! We will assume that when the wire is all wound up the ball is perfectly solid throughout, and that no allowance has to be made for the axle that passes through it. With that simplification, I wonder how many readers can state within even a mile of the correct answer the length of that wire.
Now, a straightforward question like this that everyone can easily understand will confuse many people when it comes to answering it. Let’s see if, without getting into complex mathematical calculations, we can come up with an answer that’s roughly accurate—let's say, within a mile of what’s correct! We’ll assume that when the wire is completely wound up, the ball is solid all the way through, and we don’t need to consider the axle that goes through it. With that in mind, I wonder how many readers can estimate the length of that wire within even a mile of the right answer.

Our friend in the illustration has a large sheet of zinc, measuring (before cutting) eight feet by three feet, and he has cut out square pieces (all of the same size) from the four corners and now proposes to fold up the sides, solder the edges, and make a cistern. But the point that puzzles him is this: Has he cut out those square pieces of the correct size in order that the cistern may hold the greatest possible quantity of water? You see, if you cut them very small you get a Pg 55very shallow cistern; if you cut them large you get a tall and slender one. It is all a question of finding a way of cutting put these four square pieces exactly the right size. How are we to avoid making them too small or too large?
Our friend in the illustration has a large sheet of zinc, measuring (before cutting) eight feet by three feet, and he has cut out square pieces (all the same size) from the four corners. Now he plans to fold up the sides, solder the edges, and create a cistern. But the question that confuses him is this: Has he cut out those square pieces at the right size so the cistern can hold the maximum amount of water? If the squares are cut too small, the cistern will be very shallow; if they are too large, it will end up tall and thin. It’s all about figuring out how to cut these four square pieces to the exact right size. How can we avoid cutting them too small or too large?

I have a wooden cone, as shown in Fig. 1. How am I to cut out of it the greatest possible cylinder? It will be seen that I can cut out one that is long and slender, like Fig. 2, or short and thick, like Fig. 3. But neither is the largest possible. A child could tell you where to cut, if he knew the rule. Can you find this simple rule?
I have a wooden cone, as shown in Fig. 1. How can I cut the largest possible cylinder from it? You can see that I can create one that's tall and narrow, like Fig. 2, or short and wide, like Fig. 3. But neither is the largest option. A child could figure out where to cut if they knew the rule. Can you discover this simple rule?

There are some curious facts concerning the movements of wheels that are apt to perplex the novice. For example: when a railway train is travelling from London to Crewe certain parts of the train at any given moment are actually moving from Crewe towards London. Can you indicate those parts? It seems absurd that parts of the same train can at any time travel in opposite directions, but such is the case.
There are some interesting facts about how wheels move that can confuse beginners. For example, when a train is traveling from London to Crewe, certain parts of the train at any moment are actually moving toward London from Crewe. Can you point out those parts? It seems ridiculous that parts of the same train can travel in opposite directions at the same time, but that's exactly how it works.
In the accompanying illustration we have two wheels. The lower one is supposed to be fixed and the upper one running round it in the direction of the arrows. Now, how many times does the upper wheel turn on its own axis in making a complete revolution of the other wheel? Do not be in a hurry with your answer, or you are almost certain to be wrong. Experiment with two pennies on the table and the correct answer will surprise you, when you succeed in seeing it.
In the illustration provided, there are two wheels. The bottom wheel is fixed, and the top wheel revolves around it in the direction of the arrows. So, how many times does the upper wheel rotate on its own axis while making a full turn around the lower wheel? Don’t rush your answer, or you’re likely to be incorrect. Try using two pennies on a table, and the correct answer will surprise you once you figure it out.

In the illustration eighteen matches are shown arranged so that they enclose two spaces, one just twice as large as the other. Can you rearrange them (1) so as to enclose two four-sided spaces, one exactly three times as large as the other, and (2) so as to enclose two five-sided spaces, one exactly three times as large as the other? All the eighteen matches must be fairly used in each case; the two spaces must be quite detached, and there must be no loose ends or duplicated matches.
In the illustration, eighteen matches are shown arranged to enclose two spaces, with one being exactly twice the size of the other. Can you rearrange them (1) to create two four-sided spaces, one exactly three times larger than the other, and (2) to create two five-sided spaces, one exactly three times larger than the other? All eighteen matches must be used appropriately in both cases; the two spaces must be completely separate, and there should be no loose ends or duplicated matches.

Here is a new little puzzle with matches. It will be seen in the illustration that thirteen matches, representing a farmer's hurdles, have been so placed that they enclose six sheep-pens all of the same size. Now, one of these hurdles was stolen, and the farmer wanted still to enclose six pens of equal size with the remaining twelve. How was he to do it? All the twelve matches must be fairly used, and there must be no duplicated matches or loose ends.
Here’s a new little puzzle with matches. In the illustration, you can see that thirteen matches, representing a farmer's hurdles, have been arranged to enclose six sheep pens, all of the same size. Now, one of these hurdles was stolen, and the farmer wanted to still enclose six equal-sized pens with the remaining twelve. How could he do it? All twelve matches must be used fairly, without any duplicates or loose ends.
POINTS AND LINES PROBLEMS.
"Line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little."—Isa. xxviii. 10.
"Step by step, bit by bit; here a little and there a little."—Isa. xxviii. 10.
What are known as "Points and Lines" puzzles are found very interesting by many people. The most familiar example, here given, to plant nine trees so that they shall form ten straight rows with three trees in every row, is attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, but the earliest collection of such puzzles is, I believe, in a rare little book that I possess—published in 1821—Rational Amusement for Winter Evenings, by John Jackson. The author gives ten examples of "Trees planted in Rows."
What many people find really interesting are the "Points and Lines" puzzles. The most well-known example is planting nine trees so that they create ten straight rows with three trees in each row, which is said to be attributed to Sir Isaac Newton. However, the earliest collection of these puzzles, I believe, is in a rare little book I own—published in 1821—Rational Amusement for Winter Evenings by John Jackson. The author provides ten examples of "Trees planted in Rows."

These tree-planting puzzles have always been a matter of great perplexity. They are real "puzzles," in the truest sense of the word, because nobody has yet succeeded in finding a direct and certain way of solving them. They demand the exercise of sagacity, ingenuity, and patience, and what we call "luck" is also sometimes of service. Perhaps some day a genius will discover the key to the whole mystery. Remember that the trees must be regarded as mere points, for if we were allowed to make our trees big enough we might easily "fudge" our diagrams and get in a few extra straight rows that were more apparent than real.
These tree-planting puzzles have always been really confusing. They are true "puzzles" because no one has managed to find a clear and reliable way to solve them. They require cleverness, creativity, and patience, and sometimes what we call "luck" can help too. Maybe one day, someone will figure out the whole mystery. Keep in mind that the trees should be seen as just points; if we could make our trees large enough, we might easily manipulate our diagrams and sneak in a few extra straight rows that look real but aren’t.
There was once, in ancient times, a powerful king, who had eccentric ideas on the subject of military architecture. He held that there was great strength and economy in symmetrical forms, and always cited the example of the bees, who construct their combs in perfect hexagonal cells, to prove that he had nature to support him. He resolved to build ten new castles in his country all to be connected by fortified walls, which should form five lines with four castles in every line. The royal architect presented his preliminary plan in the form I have shown. But the monarch pointed out that every castle could be approached from the outside, and commanded that the plan should be so modified that as many castles as possible should be free from attack from the outside, and could only be reached by crossing the fortified walls. The architect replied that he thought it impossible so to arrange them that even one castle, which the king proposed to use as a royal residence, could be so protected, but his majesty soon enlightened him by pointing out how it might be done. How would you have built the ten castles and fortifications so as best to fulfil the king's requirements? Remember that they must form five straight lines with four castles in every line.
Once upon a time, in ancient days, there was a powerful king with some unusual ideas about military architecture. He believed that symmetrical shapes had both strength and efficiency, often referencing the bees that build their honeycombs in perfectly hexagonal cells as proof that nature was on his side. He decided to build ten new castles in his kingdom, all linked by fortified walls, arranged in five lines with four castles in each line. The royal architect presented his initial design as I have shown. However, the king noted that every castle could be accessed from the outside and ordered that the plan be revised so that as many castles as possible would be protected from outside attacks and could only be reached by crossing the fortified walls. The architect responded that he thought it was impossible to arrange them in such a way that even one castle, which the king intended to use as a royal residence, could be secured, but the king quickly clarified how this could be achieved. How would you have designed the ten castles and fortifications to best meet the king's requirements? Keep in mind they must form five straight lines with four castles in each line.


The illustration is a plan of a cottage as it stands surrounded by an orchard of fifty-five trees. Ten of these trees are cherries, ten are plums, and the remainder apples. The cherries are so planted as to form five straight lines, with four cherry trees in every line. The plum trees Pg 57are also planted so as to form five straight lines with four plum trees in every line. The puzzle is to show which are the ten cherry trees and which are the ten plums. In order that the cherries and plums should have the most favourable aspect, as few as possible (under the conditions) are planted on the north and east sides of the orchard. Of course in picking out a group of ten trees (cherry or plum, as the case may be) you ignore all intervening trees. That is to say, four trees may be in a straight line irrespective of other trees (or the house) being in between. After the last puzzle this will be quite easy.
The illustration shows a plan of a cottage surrounded by an orchard with fifty-five trees. Ten of these trees are cherries, ten are plums, and the rest are apples. The cherries are planted to form five straight lines, each with four cherry trees. The plum trees Pg 57 are also arranged in five straight lines with four plum trees in each line. The challenge is to identify which ten trees are cherries and which ten are plums. To ensure the cherries and plums have the best exposure, as few as possible (given the conditions) are planted on the north and east sides of the orchard. When selecting a group of ten trees (cherry or plum), you can disregard any trees that are in between. In other words, four trees can be in a straight line regardless of whether other trees (or the house) are in between. After the last puzzle, this will be quite straightforward.

A man had a square plantation of forty-nine trees, but, as will be seen by the omissions in the illustration, four trees were blown down and removed. He now wants to cut down all the remainder except ten trees, which are to be so left that they shall form five straight rows with four trees in every row. Which are the ten trees that he must leave?
A man had a square plantation of forty-nine trees, but, as you can see from the missing parts in the illustration, four trees got blown down and removed. Now he wants to cut down all the remaining trees except for ten, which need to be arranged so they make five straight rows with four trees in each row. Which ten trees should he keep?
A gentleman wished to plant twenty-one trees in his park so that they should form twelve straight rows with five trees in every row. Could you have supplied him with a pretty symmetrical arrangement that would satisfy these conditions?
A man wanted to plant twenty-one trees in his park to create twelve straight rows with five trees in each row. Could you come up with a nice symmetrical arrangement that would meet these requirements?
Place ten pennies on a large sheet of paper or cardboard, as shown in the diagram, five on each edge. Now remove four of the coins, without disturbing the others, and replace them on the paper so that the ten shall form five straight lines with four coins in every line. This in itself is not difficult, but you should try to discover in how many different ways the puzzle may be solved, assuming that in every case the two rows at starting are exactly the same.
Place ten pennies on a large sheet of paper or cardboard, as shown in the diagram, five on each edge. Now remove four of the coins without disturbing the others, and reposition them on the paper so that all ten form five straight lines with four coins in each line. This isn’t difficult, but you should try to figure out how many different ways the puzzle can be solved, assuming that in every case the two starting rows are exactly the same.

It will be seen in our illustration how twelve mince-pies may be placed on the table so as to form six straight rows with four pies in every row. The puzzle is to remove only four of them to new positions so that there shall be seven straight rows with four in every row. Which four would you remove, and where would you replace them?
It will be shown in our illustration how twelve mince pies can be arranged on the table to create six straight rows with four pies in each row. The challenge is to move only four of them to different positions so that there are seven straight rows with four in each row. Which four would you move, and where would you put them?

A short time ago I received an interesting communication from the British chaplain at Meiktila, Upper Burma, in which my correspondent informed me that he had found some amusement on board ship on his way out in trying to solve this little poser.
A short time ago, I received an interesting message from the British chaplain in Meiktila, Upper Burma. He told me that he had some fun on the ship during his journey out, trying to solve this little puzzle.

If he has a plantation of forty-nine trees, planted in the form of a square as shown in the accompanying illustration, he wishes to know how he may cut down twenty-seven of the trees so that the twenty-two left standing shall form as many rows as possible with four trees in every row.
If he has a grove of forty-nine trees arranged in a square as shown in the accompanying illustration, he wants to know how he can cut down twenty-seven of the trees so that the twenty-two remaining trees will create the maximum number of rows with four trees in each row.
Of course there may not be more than four trees in any row.
Of course, there can't be more than four trees in any row.
This puzzle is on the lines of the Afridi problem published by me in Tit-Bits some years ago.
This puzzle is similar to the Afridi problem I published in Tit-Bits a few years ago.
On an open level tract of country a party of Russian infantry, no two of whom were stationed at the same spot, were suddenly surprised by thirty-two Turks, who opened fire on the Russians from all directions. Each of the Turks simultaneously fired a bullet, and each bullet passed immediately over the heads of three Russian soldiers. As each of these bullets when fired killed a different man, the puzzle is to discover what is the smallest possible number of soldiers of which the Russian party could have consisted and what were the casualties on each side.
On an open area of land, a group of Russian infantry, with no two soldiers in the same location, were suddenly ambushed by thirty-two Turks, who started shooting at them from all sides. Each Turk fired a bullet at the same time, and all the bullets flew directly over the heads of three Russian soldiers. Since each bullet struck a different soldier, the challenge is to figure out the smallest possible number of soldiers in the Russian group and how many casualties there were on each side.
MOVING COUNTER PROBLEMS.
"I cannot do't without counters."
Winter's Tale, iv. 3.
"I can't do it without counters."
Winter's Tale, Act 4, Scene 3.
Puzzles of this class, except so far as they occur in connection with actual games, such as chess, seem to be a comparatively modern introduction. Mathematicians in recent times, notably Vandermonde and Reiss, have devoted some attention to them, but they do not appear to have been considered by the old writers. So far as games with counters are concerned, perhaps the most ancient and widely known in old times is "Nine Men's Morris" (known also, as I shall show, under a great many other names), unless the simpler game, distinctly mentioned in the works of Ovid (No. 110, "Ovid's Game," in The Canterbury Puzzles), from which "Noughts and Crosses" seems to be derived, is still more ancient.
Puzzles like these, unless they are related to actual games like chess, seem to be a relatively recent development. In modern times, mathematicians like Vandermonde and Reiss have looked into them, but they don't seem to have been discussed by earlier writers. When it comes to games with pieces, one of the oldest and most well-known games from ancient times is "Nine Men's Morris" (which I will also show goes by many other names), unless the simpler game mentioned in Ovid's work (No. 110, "Ovid's Game," in The Canterbury Puzzles), which appears to be the precursor to "Noughts and Crosses," is actually even older.
In France the game is called Marelle, in Poland Siegen Wulf Myll (She-goat Wolf Mill, or Fight), in Germany and Austria it is called Muhle (the Mill), in Iceland it goes by the name of Mylla, while the Bogas (or native bargees) of South America are said to play it, and on the Amazon it is called Trique, and held to be of Indian origin. In our own country it has different names in different districts, such as Meg Merrylegs, Peg Meryll, Nine Peg o'Merryal, Nine-Pin Miracle, Merry Peg, and Merry Hole. Shakespeare refers to it in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (Act ii., scene 1):—
In France, the game is called Marelle, in Poland it's known as Siegen Wulf Myll (She-goat Wolf Mill, or Fight), in Germany and Austria, it’s called Muhle (the Mill), in Iceland, it goes by Mylla, while the Bogas (or native bargees) of South America are said to play it, and on the Amazon, it’s called Trique, believed to be of Indian origin. In our own country, it has various names in different regions, such as Meg Merrylegs, Peg Meryll, Nine Peg o'Merryal, Nine-Pin Miracle, Merry Peg, and Merry Hole. Shakespeare mentions it in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (Act ii., scene 1):—
"The nine-men's morris is filled up with mud;
And the quaint mazes in the wanton green,
For lack of tread, are undistinguishable."
"The nine-men's morris is covered in mud;
And the complex trails in the vibrant greenery,
"From not being walked on, they are indistinguishable."
It was played by the shepherds with stones in holes cut in the turf. John Clare, the peasant poet of Northamptonshire, in "The Shepherd Boy" (1835) says:—"Oft we track his haunts .... By nine-peg-morris nicked upon the green." It is also mentioned by Drayton in his "Polyolbion."
It was played by the shepherds with stones in holes cut in the grass. John Clare, the peasant poet from Northamptonshire, in "The Shepherd Boy" (1835) says:—"Often we track his haunts .... By nine-peg-morris nicked upon the green." It is also mentioned by Drayton in his "Polyolbion."
It was found on an old Roman tile discovered during the excavations at Silchester, and cut upon the steps of the Acropolis at Athens. When visiting the Christiania Museum a few years ago I was shown the great Viking ship that was discovered at Gokstad in 1880. On the oak planks forming the deck of the vessel were found boles and lines marking out the game, the holes being made to receive pegs. While inspecting the ancient oak furniture in the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam I became interested in an old catechumen's settle, and was surprised to find the game diagram cut in the centre of the seat—quite conveniently for surreptitious play. It has been discovered cut in the choir stalls of several of our English cathedrals. In the early eighties it was found scratched upon a stone built into a wall (probably about the date 1200), during the restoration of Hargrave church in Northamptonshire. This stone is now in the Northampton Museum. A similar stone has since been found at Sempringham, Lincolnshire. It is to be seen on an ancient tombstone in the Isle of Man, and painted on old Dutch tiles. And in 1901 a stone was dug out of a gravel pit near Oswestry bearing an undoubted diagram of the game.
It was found on an old Roman tile discovered during the excavations at Silchester, and etched into the steps of the Acropolis in Athens. A few years ago, when I visited the Christiania Museum, I was shown the great Viking ship uncovered at Gokstad in 1880. On the oak planks that made up the deck of the vessel, there were marks and lines outlining a game, with holes made for pegs. While looking at the ancient oak furniture in the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, I became interested in an old catechumen's settle and was surprised to find a game diagram carved in the center of the seat—perfect for a discreet game. It has also been found carved into the choir stalls of several English cathedrals. In the early 1880s, it was found scratched on a stone built into a wall (dating around 1200) during the restoration of Hargrave church in Northamptonshire. That stone is now in the Northampton Museum. A similar stone has been found at Sempringham, Lincolnshire. It's visible on an ancient tombstone in the Isle of Man, and painted on old Dutch tiles. In 1901, a stone was dug out of a gravel pit near Oswestry that clearly features a game diagram.
The game has been played with different Pg 59rules at different periods and places. I give a copy of the board. Sometimes the diagonal lines are omitted, but this evidently was not intended to affect the play: it simply meant that the angles alone were thought sufficient to indicate the points. This is how Strutt, in Sports and Pastimes, describes the game, and it agrees with the way I played it as a boy:—"Two persons, having each of them nine pieces, or men, lay them down alternately, one by one, upon the spots; and the business of either party is to prevent his antagonist from placing three of his pieces so as to form a row of three, without the intervention of an opponent piece. If a row be formed, he that made it is at liberty to take up one of his competitor's pieces from any part he thinks most to his advantage; excepting he has made a row, which must not be touched if he have another piece upon the board that is not a component part of that row. When all the pieces are laid down, they are played backwards and forwards, in any direction that the lines run, but only can move from one spot to another (next to it) at one time. He that takes off all his antagonist's pieces is the conqueror."
The game has been played with different Pg 59 rules at various times and places. I’m providing a copy of the board. Sometimes the diagonal lines are left out, but this clearly wasn’t meant to affect the play; it simply meant that the angles were considered enough to indicate the points. This is how Strutt describes the game in Sports and Pastimes, and it matches how I played it as a kid:—"Two players, each with nine pieces or men, take turns placing them one by one on the spots; the goal for each player is to prevent the other from placing three of their pieces in a row without an opponent's piece in between. If a row is made, the player who created it can remove one of their opponent's pieces from anywhere they think is most strategic, except if they have created a row that cannot be touched as long as they have another piece on the board that is not part of that row. Once all the pieces are laid down, they move back and forth in any direction the lines allow, but they can only move from one adjacent spot to another at a time. The player who removes all their opponent's pieces wins."


The six educated frogs in the illustration are trained to reverse their order, so that their numbers shall read 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, with the blank square in its present position. They can jump to the next square (if vacant) or leap over one frog to the next square beyond (if vacant), just as we move in the game of draughts, and can go backwards or forwards at pleasure. Can you show how they perform their feat in the fewest possible moves? It is quite easy, so when you have done it add a seventh frog to the right and try again. Then add more frogs until you are able to give the shortest solution for any number. For it can always be done, with that single vacant square, no matter how many frogs there are.
The six educated frogs in the illustration are trained to reverse their order so that their numbers read 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, with the empty square in its current position. They can jump to the next square (if it’s vacant) or leap over one frog to the next square beyond (if that’s vacant), just like in a game of checkers, and can move backwards or forwards as they wish. Can you figure out how they accomplish this in the fewest moves? It’s quite simple, so once you’ve done it, add a seventh frog to the right and try again. Then keep adding more frogs until you can find the shortest solution for any number. It can always be done with that single empty square, no matter how many frogs there are.
It has been suggested that this puzzle was a great favourite among the young apprentices of the City of London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Readers will have noticed the curious brass grasshopper on the Royal Exchange. This long-lived creature escaped the fires of 1666 and 1838. The grasshopper, after his kind, was the crest of Sir Thomas Gresham, merchant grocer, who died in 1579, and from this cause it has been used as a sign by grocers in general. Unfortunately for the legend as to its origin, the puzzle was only produced by myself so late as the year 1900. On twelve of the thirteen black discs are placed numbered counters or grasshoppers. The puzzle is to reverse their order, so that they shall read, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in the opposite direction, with the vacant disc left in the same position as at present. Move one at a time in any order, either to the adjoining vacant disc or by jumping over one grasshopper, like the moves in draughts. The moves or leaps may be made in either direction that is at any time possible. What are the fewest possible moves in which it can be done?
It has been said that this puzzle was a favorite among the young apprentices in the City of London during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Readers may have noticed the intriguing brass grasshopper on the Royal Exchange. This long-lasting figure survived the fires of 1666 and 1838. The grasshopper, of its kind, was the crest of Sir Thomas Gresham, a merchant grocer who passed away in 1579, which is why it has been used as a sign by grocers in general. Unfortunately for the legend about its origin, I only created the puzzle as recently as 1900. On twelve of the thirteen black discs, there are numbered counters or grasshoppers. The challenge is to reverse their order so that they read as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in the opposite direction, while leaving the empty disc in the same position as it is now. You can move one at a time in any order, either to the adjacent empty disc or by jumping over one grasshopper, similar to the moves in checkers. The moves or jumps can be made in either direction whenever possible. What is the minimum number of moves required to accomplish this?


Our six educated frogs have learnt a new and pretty feat. When placed on glass tumblers, as shown in the illustration, they change sides so that the three black ones are to the left and the white frogs to the right, with the unoccupied tumbler at the opposite end—No. 7. They can jump to the next tumbler (if unoccupied), or over one, or two, frogs to an unoccupied tumbler. The jumps can be made in either direction, and a frog may jump over his own or the opposite colour, or both colours. Four suePg 60cessive specimen jumps will make everything quite plain: 4 to 1, 5 to 4, 3 to 5, 6 to 3. Can you show how they do it in ten jumps?
Our six smart frogs have learned a new and interesting trick. When placed on glass tumblers, as shown in the picture, they switch sides so that the three black ones are on the left and the white frogs are on the right, with the empty tumbler at the far end—No. 7. They can jump to the next tumbler (if it's empty), or over one or two frogs to reach an empty tumbler. The jumps can happen in either direction, and a frog can jump over its own color, the opposite color, or both colors. Four consecutive example jumps will make everything clear: 4 to 1, 5 to 4, 3 to 5, 6 to 3. Can you figure out how they do it in ten jumps?

In the illustration we have eleven discs in a circle. On five of the discs we place white counters with black letters—as shown—and on five other discs the black counters with white letters. The bottom disc is left vacant. Starting thus, it is required to get the counters into order so that they spell the word "Twickenham" in a clockwise direction, leaving the vacant disc in the original position. The black counters move in the direction that a clock-hand revolves, and the white counters go the opposite way. A counter may jump over one of the opposite colour if the vacant disc is next beyond. Thus, if your first move is with K, then C can jump over K. If then K moves towards E, you may next jump W over C, and so on. The puzzle may be solved in twenty-six moves. Remember a counter cannot jump over one of its own colour.
In the illustration, there are eleven discs arranged in a circle. On five of the discs, we place white counters with black letters, as shown, and on five other discs, there are black counters with white letters. The bottom disc is left empty. Starting from this setup, the goal is to arrange the counters so that they spell the word "Twickenham" in a clockwise direction while keeping the empty disc in its original position. The black counters move like the hands of a clock, while the white counters move in the opposite direction. A counter can jump over an adjacent counter of the opposite color if the empty disc is immediately beyond it. For example, if your first move is with K, then C can jump over K. If K then moves towards E, you can next jump W over C, and so on. The puzzle can be solved in twenty-six moves. Keep in mind that a counter cannot jump over another counter of its own color.

The puzzle-maker is peculiarly a "snapper-up of unconsidered trifles," and his productions are often built up with the slenderest materials. Trivialities that might entirely escape the observation of others, or, if they were observed, would be regarded as of no possible moment, often supply the man who is in quest of posers with a pretty theme or an idea that he thinks possesses some "basal value."
The puzzle-maker is uniquely a "snapper-up of unconsidered trifles," and his creations are often constructed from the thinnest materials. Little details that might completely go unnoticed by others, or, if they are noticed, would be seen as insignificant, often provide the person seeking challenges with an interesting topic or an idea that he believes has some "basal value."
When seated opposite to a lady in a railway carriage at the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, my attention was attracted to a brooch that she was wearing. It was in the form of a Maltese or Victoria Cross, and bore the letters of the word VICTORIA. The number and arrangement of the letters immediately gave me the suggestion for the puzzle which I now present.
When I was sitting across from a woman in a train carriage during Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, I noticed a brooch she was wearing. It was shaped like a Maltese or Victoria Cross and had the word VICTORIA written on it. The way the letters were arranged caught my attention and inspired the puzzle I’m sharing now.
The diagram, it will be seen, is composed of nine divisions. The puzzle is to place eight counters, bearing the letters of the word VICTORIA, exactly in the manner shown, and then slide one letter at a time from black to white and white to black alternately, until the word reads round in the same direction, only with the initial letter V on one of the black arms of the cross. At no time may two letters be in the same division. It is required to find the shortest method.
The diagram consists of nine sections. The challenge is to arrange eight counters, which have the letters of the word VICTORIA, as shown, and then slide one letter at a time from black to white and vice versa, alternating between the two, until the word reads in the same direction, with the initial letter V positioned on one of the black arms of the cross. At no point can two letters occupy the same section. The goal is to find the shortest way to achieve this.
Leaping moves are, of course, not permitted. The first move must obviously be made with A, I, T, or R. Supposing you move T to the centre, the next counter played will be O or C, since I or R cannot be moved. There is something a little remarkable in the solution of this puzzle which I will explain.
Leaping moves aren't allowed. The first move must clearly be made with A, I, T, or R. If you move T to the center, the next play can only be O or C, since I or R can't be moved. There's something quite interesting about the solution to this puzzle that I'll explain.

Here is a little reminiscence of our old friend the Fifteen Block Puzzle. Eight wooden blocks are lettered, and are placed in a box, as shown in the illustration. It will be seen that you can only move one block at a time to the place vacant for the time being, as no block may be lifted out of the box. The puzzle is to shift them about until you get them in the order—
Here is a little memory of our old friend the Fifteen Block Puzzle. Eight wooden blocks are labeled and placed in a box, as shown in the picture. You can see that you can only move one block at a time into the currently empty space, as no block can be taken out of the box. The challenge is to rearrange them until you get them in the correct order—
A B C
D E F
G H
A B C
D E F
G H
This you will find by no means difficult if you are allowed as many moves as you like. But the puzzle is to do it in the fewest possible moves. I will not say what this smallest number of moves is, because the reader may like to discover it for himself. In writing down your moves you will find it necessary to record no more than the letters in the order that they are shifted. Thus, your first five moves might be C, H, G, E, F; and this notation can have no possible ambiguity. In practice you only need eight counters and a simple diagram on a sheet of paper.
This will be easy to figure out if you can make as many moves as you want. But the challenge is to do it in the fewest moves possible. I won't reveal what the smallest number of moves is because you might want to figure it out for yourself. When you write down your moves, you only need to note the letters in the order they shift. So, your first five moves might be C, H, G, E, F; and this way of recording them is completely clear. In practice, you only need eight counters and a simple diagram on a piece of paper.

The Dobsons secured apartments at Slocomb-on-Sea. There were six rooms on the same floor, all communicating, as shown in the diagram. The rooms they took were numbers 4, 5, and 6, all facing the sea. But a little difficulty arose. Mr. Dobson insisted that the piano and the bookcase should change rooms. This was wily, for the Dobsons were not musical, but they wanted to prevent any one else playing the instrument. Now, the rooms were very small and the pieces of furniture indicated were very big, so that no two of these articles could be got into any room at the same time. How was the exchange to be made with the least possible labour? Suppose, for example, you first move the wardrobe into No. 2; then you can move the bookcase to No. 5 and the piano to No. 6, and so on. It is a fascinating puzzle, but the landlady had reasons for not appreciating it. Try to solve her difficulty in the fewest possible removals with counters on a sheet of paper.
The Dobsons rented apartments at Slocomb-on-Sea. There were six rooms on the same floor, all connected, as shown in the diagram. They took rooms 4, 5, and 6, all facing the sea. However, a little issue came up. Mr. Dobson insisted that the piano and the bookcase should switch rooms. This was clever, as the Dobsons weren’t musical, but they wanted to stop anyone else from playing the piano. The rooms were quite small, and the pieces of furniture they mentioned were large, meaning no two of these items could fit in any room at the same time. How could the exchange be done with the least amount of effort? For example, if you first move the wardrobe into room 2, then you can move the bookcase to room 5 and the piano to room 6, and so on. It’s an interesting puzzle, but the landlady had her reasons for not enjoying it. Try to solve her problem with the fewest possible moves using counters on a sheet of paper.
The diagram represents the engine-yard of a railway company under eccentric management. The engines are allowed to be stationary only at the nine points indicated, one of which is at present vacant. It is required to move the engines, one at a time, from point to point, in seventeen moves, so that their numbers shall be in numerical order round the circle, with the central point left vacant. But one of the engines has had its fire drawn, and therefore cannot move. How is the thing to be done? And which engine remains stationary throughout?
The diagram shows the engine yard of a railway company with quirky management. The engines can only stay put at the nine specified points, one of which is currently empty. You need to move the engines, one at a time, from point to point, in seventeen moves, so that their numbers are in order around the circle, leaving the central point empty. However, one of the engines has had its fire extinguished, so it can’t move. How will this be accomplished? And which engine stays put the entire time?


Make a diagram, on a large sheet of paper, like the illustration, and have three counters marked A, three marked B, and three marked C. It will be seen that at the intersection of lines there are nine stopping-places, and a tenth stopping-Pg 62place is attached to the outer circle like the tail of a Q. Place the three counters or engines marked A, the three marked B, and the three marked C at the places indicated. The puzzle is to move the engines, one at a time, along the lines, from stopping-place to stopping-place, until you succeed in getting an A, a B, and a C on each circle, and also A, B, and C on each straight line. You are required to do this in as few moves as possible. How many moves do you need?
Create a diagram on a large sheet of paper, similar to the illustration, and use three counters labeled A, three labeled B, and three labeled C. You'll notice that there are nine stopping points at the intersections of the lines, with a tenth stopping point attached to the outer circle like the tail of a Q. Position the three A counters, the three B counters, and the three C counters at the indicated spots. The challenge is to move the counters one at a time along the lines from stopping point to stopping point until you manage to place one A, one B, and one C on each circle, as well as an A, B, and C on each straight line. You need to accomplish this in the fewest moves possible. How many moves will it take?
The plan represents a portion of the line of the London, Clodville, and Mudford Railway Company. It is a single line with a loop. There is only room for eight wagons, or seven wagons and an engine, between B and C on either the left line or the right line of the loop. It happened that two goods trains (each consisting of an engine and sixteen wagons) got into the position shown in the illustration. It looked like a hopeless deadlock, and each engine-driver wanted the other to go back to the next station and take off nine wagons. But an ingenious stoker undertook to pass the trains and send them on their respective journeys with their engines properly in front. He also contrived to reverse the engines the fewest times possible. Could you have performed the feat? And how many times would you require to reverse the engines? A "reversal" means a change of direction, backward or forward. No rope-shunting, fly-shunting, or other trick is allowed. All the work must be done legitimately by the two engines. It is a simple but interesting puzzle if attempted with counters.
The plan shows part of the London, Clodville, and Mudford Railway Company line. It’s a single track with a loop. There’s only space for eight wagons, or seven wagons and an engine, between B and C on either side of the loop. At one point, two freight trains (each with an engine and sixteen wagons) ended up in the position shown in the illustration. It seemed like a complete standstill, and each driver wanted the other to back up to the next station and remove nine wagons. But a clever stoker took it upon himself to navigate the trains and send them on their respective journeys with their engines properly positioned in front. He also managed to reverse the engines the fewest times possible. Could you have accomplished this? And how many times would you need to reverse the engines? A "reversal" means changing direction, either backward or forward. No rope-shunting, fly-shunting, or other tricks are allowed. All the work must be done properly by the two engines. It’s a simple yet engaging puzzle if you try it with counters.


The difficulties of the proprietor of a motor garage are converted into a little pastime of a kind that has a peculiar fascination. All you need is to make a simple plan or diagram on a sheet of paper or cardboard and number eight counters, 1 to 8. Then a whole family can enter into an amusing competition to find the best possible solution of the difficulty.
The challenges faced by a garage owner turn into an engaging game that's oddly captivating. All you need to do is make a simple plan or diagram on a piece of paper or cardboard and label eight counters from 1 to 8. Then, the whole family can get involved in a fun competition to find the best solution to the problem.
The illustration represents the plan of a motor garage, with accommodation for twelve cars. But the premises are so inconveniently restricted that the proprietor is often caused considerable perplexity. Suppose, for example, that the eight cars numbered 1 to 8 are in the positions shown, how are they to be shifted in the quickest possible way so that 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall change places with 5, 6, 7, and 8—that is, with the numbers still running from left to right, as at present, but the top row exchanged with the bottom row? What are the fewest possible moves?
The illustration shows a layout of a car garage that can hold twelve cars. However, the space is so awkwardly designed that the owner often finds it quite complicated. For instance, if the eight cars numbered 1 to 8 are parked in the shown positions, how can they be moved in the quickest way possible so that cars 1, 2, 3, and 4 switch places with cars 5, 6, 7, and 8? In other words, the numbers need to remain in the same order from left to right, but the top row should be swapped with the bottom row. What is the minimum number of moves required?
One car moves at a time, and any distance counts as one move. To prevent misunderstanding, the stopping-places are marked in squares, and only one car can be in a square at the same time.
One car moves at a time, and any distance counts as one move. To avoid confusion, the stopping places are marked in squares, and only one car can occupy a square at a time.
If prisons had no other use, they might still be preserved for the special benefit of puzzle-makers. They appear to be an inexhaustible mine of perplexing ideas. Here is a little poser that will perhaps interest the reader for a short period. We have in the illustration a prison of sixteen cells. The locations of the ten prisoners will be seen. The jailer has queer superstitions about odd and even numbers, and he Pg 63wants to rearrange the ten prisoners so that there shall be as many even rows of men, vertically, horizontally, and diagonally, as possible. At present it will be seen, as indicated by the arrows, that there are only twelve such rows of 2 and 4. I will state at once that the greatest number of such rows that is possible is sixteen. But the jailer only allows four men to be removed to other cells, and informs me that, as the man who is seated in the bottom right-hand corner is infirm, he must not be moved. Now, how are we to get those sixteen rows of even numbers under such conditions?
If prisons served no other purpose, they might still be kept around just for the benefit of puzzle creators. They seem to be an endless source of challenging ideas. Here’s a little puzzle that might interest the reader for a moment. In the picture, we have a prison with sixteen cells. You can see the locations of the ten prisoners. The jailer has strange beliefs about odd and even numbers, and he wants to rearrange the ten prisoners to create as many even rows of men, vertically, horizontally, and diagonally, as possible. Right now, as shown by the arrows, there are only twelve rows of 2 and 4. I'll say right away that the maximum number of such rows possible is sixteen. However, the jailer only allows four men to be moved to other cells and informs me that the man seated in the bottom right corner is infirm, so he cannot be moved. So, how can we achieve those sixteen rows of even numbers under these circumstances?


Here is a puzzle that will, I think, be found as amusing as instructive. We are given a ring of eight circles. Leaving circle 8 blank, we are required to write in the name of a seven-lettered port in the United Kingdom in this manner. Touch a blank circle with your pencil, then jump over two circles in either direction round the ring, and write down the first letter. Then touch another vacant circle, jump over two circles, and write down your second letter. Proceed similarly with the other letters in their proper order until you have completed the word. Thus, suppose we select "Glasgow," and proceed as follows: 6—1, 7—2, 8—3, 7—4, 8—5, which means that we touch 6, jump over 7 and and write down "G" on 1; then touch 7, jump over 8 and 1, and write down "l" on 2; and so on. It will be found that after we have written down the first five letters—"Glasg"—as above, we cannot go any further. Either there is something wrong with "Glasgow," or we have not managed our jumps properly. Can you get to the bottom of the mystery?
Here’s a puzzle that I think will be both entertaining and educational. We have a circle made up of eight spots. With spot 8 left empty, we need to write the name of a seven-letter port in the United Kingdom like this: Touch an empty spot with your pencil, then jump over two spots in either direction around the circle, and write down the first letter. Then touch another empty spot, jump over two spots again, and write down your second letter. Continue doing this for the remaining letters in the correct order until you complete the word. For example, if we choose "Glasgow," we would proceed like this: 6—1, 7—2, 8—3, 7—4, 8—5, which means we touch 6, jump over 7, and write "G" at 1; then touch 7, jump over 8 and 1, and write "l" at 2; and so on. You’ll find that after we’ve written the first five letters—"Glasg"—as described, we can’t write any more. Either there’s an issue with "Glasgow," or we haven’t done our jumps correctly. Can you solve the mystery?

This ancient puzzle was a great favourite with our grandmothers, and most of us, I imagine, have on occasions come across a "Solitaire" board—a round polished board with holes cut in it in a geometrical pattern, and a glass marble in every hole. Sometimes I have noticed one on a side table in a suburban front parlour, or found one on a shelf in a country cottage, or had one brought under my notice at a wayside inn. Sometimes they are of the form shown above, but it is equally common for the board to have four more holes, at the points indicated by dots. I select the simpler form.
This classic puzzle was a favorite of our grandmothers, and I'm sure many of us have come across a "Solitaire" board at some point—a smooth, round board with holes arranged in a geometric pattern, with a glass marble in each hole. Sometimes I've seen one on a side table in a suburban living room, or found one on a shelf in a country cottage, or had one pointed out to me at a roadside inn. Sometimes they look like the one shown above, but it's also common for the board to have four additional holes at the spots marked by dots. I choose the simpler version.
Though "Solitaire" boards are still sold at the toy shops, it will be sufficient if the reader will make an enlarged copy of the above on a sheet of cardboard or paper, number the "holes," and provide himself with 33 counters, buttons, or beans. Now place a counter in every hole except the central one, No. 17, and the puzzle is to take off all the counters in a series of jumps, except the last counter, which must be left in that central hole. You are Pg 64allowed to jump one counter over the next one to a vacant hole beyond, just as in the game of draughts, and the counter jumped over is immediately taken off the board. Only remember every move must be a jump; consequently you will take off a counter at each move, and thirty-one single jumps will of course remove all the thirty-one counters. But compound moves are allowed (as in draughts, again), for so long as one counter continues to jump, the jumps all count as one move.
Though "Solitaire" boards are still sold in toy stores, it's enough for the reader to make an enlarged version of the above on a piece of cardboard or paper, number the "holes," and provide themselves with 33 counters, buttons, or beans. Now, place a counter in every hole except the central one, No. 17, and the goal is to remove all the counters in a series of jumps, leaving the last counter in that central hole. You can jump one counter over the next into an empty hole beyond, just like in checkers, and the counter you jumped over is immediately removed from the board. Just remember that every move must be a jump; therefore, you'll remove a counter with each move, and thirty-one single jumps will obviously eliminate all thirty-one counters. However, compound moves are allowed (as in checkers again), as long as one counter keeps jumping, all the jumps count as one move.
Here is the beginning of an imaginary solution which will serve to make the manner of moving perfectly plain, and show how the solver should write out his attempts: 5-17, 12-10, 26-12, 24-26 (13-11, 11-25), 9-11 (26-24, 24-10, 10-12), etc., etc. The jumps contained within brackets count as one move, because they are made with the same counter. Find the fewest possible moves. Of course, no diagonal jumps are permitted; you can only jump in the direction of the lines.
Here’s the start of a hypothetical solution that will clearly demonstrate how to move and illustrate how the solver should record their attempts: 5-17, 12-10, 26-12, 24-26 (13-11, 11-25), 9-11 (26-24, 24-10, 10-12), etc., etc. The jumps in brackets count as one move because they use the same piece. Find the minimum number of moves possible. Of course, diagonal jumps aren’t allowed; you can only jump in the direction of the lines.

The family represented in the illustration are amusing themselves with this little puzzle, which is not very difficult but quite interesting. They have, it will be seen, placed sixteen plates on the table in the form of a square, and put an apple in each of ten plates. They want to find a way of removing all the apples except one by jumping over one at a time to the next vacant square, as in draughts; or, better, as in solitaire, for you are not allowed to make any diagonal moves—only moves parallel to the sides of the square. It is obvious that as the apples stand no move can be made, but you are permitted to transfer any single apple you like to a vacant plate before starting. Then the moves must be all leaps, taking off the apples leaped over.
The family shown in the illustration is having fun with this little puzzle, which isn’t very hard but is quite interesting. They’ve arranged sixteen plates on the table in a square and placed an apple on ten of the plates. They want to figure out how to remove all the apples except one by jumping over them one at a time to the next empty square, like in checkers; or better yet, like in solitaire, because diagonal moves aren’t allowed—only moves parallel to the sides of the square. It’s clear that with the apples in their current positions, no moves can be made, but you can move any single apple to an empty plate before starting. After that, all moves must involve jumps, removing the apples you jump over.
"Here is a little puzzle," said a Parson, "that I have found peculiarly fascinating. It is so simple, and yet it keeps you interested indefinitely."
"Here’s a little puzzle," said a Parson, "that I find particularly fascinating. It’s really simple, yet it keeps you engaged for a long time."
The reverend gentleman took a sheet of paper and divided it off into twenty-five squares, like a square portion of a chessboard. Then he placed nine almonds on the central squares, as shown in the illustration, where we have represented numbered counters for convenience in giving the solution.
The reverend gentleman grabbed a piece of paper and divided it into twenty-five squares, resembling a section of a chessboard. Then he placed nine almonds in the middle squares, as illustrated, where we’ve used numbered counters to make it easier to find the solution.
"Now, the puzzle is," continued the Parson, "to remove eight of the almonds and leave the ninth in the central square. You make the removals by jumping one almond over another to the vacant square beyond and taking off the one jumped over—just as in draughts, only here you can jump in any direction, and not diagonally only. The point is to do the thing in the fewest possible moves."
"Now, the challenge is," continued the Parson, "to take out eight of the almonds and keep the ninth in the center square. You can remove them by jumping one almond over another into the empty square beyond and removing the one you jumped over—just like in checkers, but here you can jump in any direction, not just diagonally. The goal is to accomplish this in the fewest moves possible."
The following specimen attempt will make everything clear. Jump 4 over 1, 5 over 9, 3 over 6, 5 over 3, 7 over 5 and 2, 4 over 7, 8 over 4. But 8 is not left in the central square, as it Pg 65should be. Remember to remove those you jump over. Any number of jumps in succession with the same almond count as one move.
The following example will clarify everything. Jump 4 over 1, 5 over 9, 3 over 6, 5 over 3, 7 over 5 and 2, 4 over 7, and 8 over 4. However, 8 is not left in the central square, as it Pg 65should be. Remember to remove the numbers you jump over. Any number of jumps in a row with the same almond counts as one move.

Here is a pretty little puzzle that only requires twelve pennies or counters. Arrange them in a circle, as shown in the illustration. Now take up one penny at a time and, passing it over two pennies, place it on the third penny. Then take up another single penny and do the same thing, and so on, until, in six such moves, you have the coins in six pairs in the positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You can move in either direction round the circle at every play, and it does not matter whether the two jumped over are separate or a pair. This is quite easy if you use just a little thought.
Here’s a fun little puzzle that only needs twelve pennies or counters. Arrange them in a circle, like shown in the picture. Now pick up one penny at a time, and after skipping two pennies, place it on the third penny. Then pick up another penny and do the same, and so on, until in six moves, you have the coins in six pairs in the positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You can move in either direction around the circle with each turn, and it doesn’t matter if the two jumped over are separate or a pair. This is quite easy if you think a little.

Place twelve plates, as shown, on a round table, with a penny or orange in every plate. Start from any plate you like and, always going in one direction round the table, take up one penny, pass it over two other pennies, and place it in the next plate. Go on again; take up another penny and, having passed it over two pennies, place it in a plate; and so continue your journey. Six coins only are to be removed, and when these have been placed there should be two coins in each of six plates and six plates empty. An important point of the puzzle is to go round the table as few times as possible. It does not matter whether the two coins passed over are in one or two plates, nor how many empty plates you pass a coin over. But you must always go in one direction round the table and end at the point from which you set out. Your hand, that is to say, goes steadily forward in one direction, without ever moving backwards.
Place twelve plates on a round table as shown, with either a penny or an orange in each plate. Start from any plate you choose and, always moving in one direction around the table, pick up one penny, skip over two other pennies, and put it in the next plate. Keep going; pick up another penny and, after skipping two pennies, place it in a plate; continue this process. Only six coins should be removed, and by the end, there should be two coins in each of six plates and six plates empty. A key part of the puzzle is to go around the table as few times as possible. It doesn’t matter if the two coins you skip over are in one or two plates, nor how many empty plates you pass over. However, you must always move in one direction around the table and end up at the spot where you started. In other words, your hand should move steadily forward in one direction, without ever going backward.


"Play fair!" said the mice. "You know the rules of the game."
"Play fair!" said the mice. "You know the rules of the game."
"Hurry up, then!" shouted the mice.
"Hurry up, then!" shouted the mice.
"Give a fellow time to think," said the cat. "I don't know which of you to start at. I must figure it out."
"Give someone some time to think," said the cat. "I can't decide who to start with. I need to figure it out."
While the cat was working out the puzzle he fell asleep, and, the spell being thus broken, the mice returned home in safety. At which mouse should the cat have started the count in order that the white mouse should be the last eaten?
While the cat was figuring out the puzzle, he fell asleep, and with the spell broken, the mice safely made their way home. Which mouse should the cat have started counting from so that the white mouse would be the last one eaten?
When the reader has solved that little puzzle, here is a second one for him. What is the smallest number that the cat can count round and round the circle, if he must start at the white mouse (calling that "one" in the count) and still eat the white mouse last of all?
When the reader has figured out that little puzzle, here's a second one for them. What’s the smallest number that the cat can count around the circle, if it has to start at the white mouse (calling that "one" in the count) and still eat the white mouse last?
And as a third puzzle try to discover what is the smallest number that the cat can count round and round if she must start at the white mouse (calling that "one") and make the white mouse the third eaten.
And as a third challenge, see if you can figure out the smallest number that the cat can count round and round if she starts at the white mouse (calling that "one") and makes the white mouse the third one she eats.

The cheesemonger depicted in the illustration is an inveterate puzzle lover. One of his favourite puzzles is the piling of cheeses in his warehouse, an amusement that he finds good exercise for the body as well as for the mind. He places sixteen cheeses on the floor in a straight row and then makes them into four piles, with four cheeses in every pile, by always passing a cheese over four others. If you use sixteen counters and number them in order from 1 to 16, then you may place 1 on 6, 11 on 1, 7 on 4, and so on, until there are four in every pile. It will be seen that it does not matter whether the four passed over are standing alone or piled; they count just the same, and you can always carry a cheese in either direction. There are a great many different ways of doing it in twelve moves, so it makes a good game of "patience" to try to solve it so that the four piles shall be left in different stipulated places. For example, try to leave the piles at the extreme ends of the row, on Nos. 1, 2, 15 and 16; this is quite easy. Then try to leave three piles together, on Nos. 13, 14, and 15. Then again play so that they shall be left on Nos. 3, 5, 12, and 14.
The cheesemonger shown in the illustration is a lifelong puzzle enthusiast. One of his favorite puzzles involves stacking cheeses in his warehouse, which he finds to be great exercise for both his body and mind. He starts by placing sixteen cheeses on the floor in a straight line and then arranges them into four stacks, each containing four cheeses, by always moving a cheese over four others. If you take sixteen counters and number them from 1 to 16, you can place 1 on 6, 11 on 1, 7 on 4, and so on, until there are four in each stack. It doesn’t matter if the four that are passed over are standing alone or already stacked; they count the same, and you can always move a cheese in either direction. There are many different ways to do this in twelve moves, making it a fun game of "patience" to try to solve it so that the four stacks are in different designated spots. For example, try to position the stacks at the ends of the row, on Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16; this is fairly easy. Then attempt to place three stacks together on Nos. 13, 14, and 15. After that, play again to leave them on Nos. 3, 5, 12, and 14.
Here is a rather entertaining little puzzle with moving counters. You only need twelve counters—six of one colour, marked A, C, E, G, I, and K, and the other six marked B, D, F, H, J, and L. You first place them on the diagram, as shown in the illustration, and the puzzle is to get them into regular alphabetical order, as follows:—Pg 67
Here is a fun little puzzle with moving pieces. You only need twelve pieces—six of one color, labeled A, C, E, G, I, and K, and the other six labeled B, D, F, H, J, and L. First, place them on the diagram, as shown in the illustration, and the challenge is to arrange them in regular alphabetical order, as follows:—Pg 67
A | B | C | D |
E | F | G | H |
I | J | K | L |
The moves are made by exchanges of opposite colours standing on the same line. Thus, G and J may exchange places, or F and A, but you cannot exchange G and C, or F and D, because in one case they are both white and in the other case both black. Can you bring about the required arrangement in seventeen exchanges?
The moves are made by exchanging pieces of opposite colors standing on the same line. So, G and J can switch places, or F and A, but you can't swap G and C, or F and D, because in the first case they're both white and in the second case they're both black. Can you achieve the required arrangement in seventeen exchanges?

It cannot be done in fewer moves. The puzzle is really much easier than it looks, if properly attacked.
It can't be done in fewer moves. The puzzle is actually a lot easier than it appears, if you approach it the right way.

If a fleet of sixteen men-of-war were lying at anchor and surrounded by the enemy, how many ships might be sunk if every torpedo, projected in a straight line, passed under three vessels and sank the fourth? In the diagram we have arranged the fleet in square formation, where it will be seen that as many as seven ships may be sunk (those in the top row and first column) by firing the torpedoes indicated by arrows. Anchoring the fleet as we like, to what extent can we increase this number? Remember that each successive ship is sunk before another torpedo is launched, and that every torpedo proceeds in a different direction; otherwise, by placing the ships in a straight line, we might sink as many as thirteen! It is an interesting little study in naval warfare, and eminently practical—provided the enemy will allow you to arrange his fleet for your convenience and promise to lie still and do nothing!
If a fleet of sixteen warships was anchored and surrounded by the enemy, how many ships could be sunk if every torpedo, shot in a straight line, passed under three vessels and sank the fourth? In the diagram, we have arranged the fleet in a square formation, where you can see that as many as seven ships may be sunk (those in the top row and first column) by firing the torpedoes indicated by arrows. By arranging the fleet as we want, how much can we increase this number? Keep in mind that each ship is sunk before another torpedo is launched, and that every torpedo goes in a different direction; otherwise, if we placed the ships in a straight line, we might be able to sink as many as thirteen! It's an interesting little study in naval warfare and quite practical—if only the enemy would let you set up their fleet for your benefit and agree to stay still and do nothing!
Ten hats were hung on pegs as shown in the illustration—five silk hats and five felt "bowlers," alternately silk and felt. The two pegs at the end of the row were empty.
Ten hats were hung on pegs as shown in the illustration—five silk hats and five felt bowlers, alternating between silk and felt. The two pegs at the end of the row were empty.

The puzzle is to remove two contiguous hats to the vacant pegs, then two other adjoining hats to the pegs now unoccupied, and so on until five pairs have been moved and the hats again hang in an unbroken row, but with all the silk ones together and all the felt hats together.
The challenge is to take off two adjacent hats and place them on the empty pegs, then move two more neighboring hats to the now vacant pegs, and continue this process until five pairs have been shifted so that the hats are hanging in a continuous line again, but with all the silk hats grouped together and all the felt hats grouped together.
Remember, the two hats removed must always be contiguous ones, and you must take one in each hand and place them on their new pegs without reversing their relative position. You are not allowed to cross your hands, nor to hang up one at a time.
Remember, the two hats you take off must always be next to each other, and you have to hold one in each hand and place them on the new pegs without changing their order. You can't cross your hands, nor can you hang them up one at a time.
Can you solve this old puzzle, which I give as introductory to the next? Try it with counters of two colours or with coins, and remember that the two empty pegs must be left at one end of the row.
Can you solve this classic puzzle that I’m presenting as an introduction to the next one? Try it with two different colored counters or with coins, and keep in mind that the two empty pegs need to be placed at one end of the row.
If you mark off ten divisions on a sheet of paper to represent the chairs, and use eight numbered counters for the children, you will have a fascinating pastime. Let the odd numbers represent boys and even numbers girls, or you can use counters of two colours, or coins.
If you draw ten sections on a piece of paper to represent the chairs and use eight numbered tokens for the kids, you’ll have an interesting activity. You can let the odd numbers stand for boys and the even numbers for girls, or you can use tokens of two different colors or coins.
The puzzle is to remove two children who are occupying adjoining chairs and place them in two empty chairs, making them first change sides; then remove a second pair of children from adjoining chairs and place them in the two now vacant, making them change sides; and so on, until all the boys are together and all the girls together, with the two vacant chairs at one end as at present. To solve the puzzle you must do this in five moves. The two children must always be taken from chairs that are next to one another; and remember the important point of making the two children change sides, Pg 68as this latter is the distinctive feature of the puzzle. By "change sides" I simply mean that if, for example, you first move 1 and 2 to the vacant chairs, then the first (the outside) chair will be occupied by 2 and the second one by 1.
The challenge is to remove two kids who are sitting in adjacent chairs and move them to two empty chairs, making sure they switch sides; then take another pair of kids from adjacent chairs and put them in the two now empty ones, again making them switch sides; and keep doing this until all the boys are together and all the girls are together, with the two empty chairs at one end like they are now. You need to solve the challenge in five moves. The two kids must always be taken from chairs that are next to each other; and remember the key point of making the two kids switch sides, Pg 68since that’s the main part of the puzzle. When I say "switch sides," I just mean that if, for example, you first move 1 and 2 to the empty chairs, then the first (the outside) chair will be taken by 2 and the second one by 1.

I happened to see a little girl sorting out some jam in a cupboard for her mother. She was putting each different kind of preserve apart on the shelves. I noticed that she took a pot of damson in one hand and a pot of gooseberry in the other and made them change places; then she changed a strawberry with a raspberry, and so on. It was interesting to observe what a lot of unnecessary trouble she gave herself by making more interchanges than there was any need for, and I thought it would work into a good puzzle.
I saw a little girl organizing some jam in a cupboard for her mom. She was putting each type of preserve on separate shelves. I noticed she took a jar of damson in one hand and a jar of gooseberry in the other and swapped them; then she switched a strawberry with a raspberry, and so on. It was interesting to see how much extra effort she was making by doing more swaps than necessary, and I thought it would make for a good puzzle.

It will be seen in the illustration that little Dorothy has to manipulate twenty-four large jampots in as many pigeon-holes. She wants to get them in correct numerical order—that is, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on the top shelf, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 on the next shelf, and so on. Now, if she always takes one pot in the right hand and another in the left and makes them change places, how many of these interchanges will be necessary to get all the jampots in proper order? She would naturally first change the 1 and the 3, then the 2 and the 3, when she would have the first three pots in their places. How would you advise her to go on then? Place some numbered counters on a sheet of paper divided into squares for the pigeon-holes, and you will find it an amusing puzzle.
In the illustration, you can see little Dorothy has to handle twenty-four large jampots, each in their own pigeonhole. She wants to arrange them in the correct numerical order—specifically, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on the top shelf, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 on the next shelf, and so on. If she always picks up one pot with her right hand and another with her left and switches their places, how many swaps will she need to put all the jampots in the right order? She would naturally start by swapping the 1 and the 3, then the 2 and the 3, at which point the first three pots will be in their correct spots. How would you suggest she proceed from there? Place some numbered counters on a piece of paper divided into squares for the pigeonholes, and you'll find it an entertaining challenge.
UNICURSAL AND ROUTE PROBLEMS.
"I see them on their winding way."
REGINALD HEBER.
"I see them on their winding path."
REGINALD HEBER.
It is reasonable to suppose that from the earliest ages one man has asked another such questions as these: "Which is the nearest way home?" "Which is the easiest or pleasantest way?" "How can we find a way that will enable us to dodge the mastodon and the plesiosaurus?" "How can we get there without ever crossing the track of the enemy?" All these are elementary route problems, and they can be turned into good puzzles by the introduction of some conditions that complicate matters. A variety of such complications will be found in the following examples. I have also included some enumerations of more or less difficulty. These afford excellent practice for the reasoning faculties, and enable one to generalize in the case of symmetrical forms in a manner that is most instructive.
It’s reasonable to think that from ancient times, one person has asked another questions like: "What's the quickest way home?" "What's the easiest or most enjoyable route?" "How can we find a path that lets us avoid the mastodon and the plesiosaurus?" "How can we get there without running into the enemy?" All these are basic routing problems, and they can become interesting puzzles by adding some conditions that make things more complex. You’ll find a variety of these complications in the examples that follow. I've also included some different levels of difficulty. These provide great practice for reasoning skills and help you generalize about symmetrical shapes in a way that is really educational.
For years I have been perpetually consulted by my juvenile friends about this little puzzle. Most children seem to know it, and yet, curiously enough, they are invariably unacquainted with the answer. The question they always ask is, "Do, please, tell me whether it is really possible." I believe Houdin the conjurer used to be very fond of giving it to his child friends, but I cannot say whether he invented the little puzzle or not. No doubt a large number of my readers will be glad to have the mystery of the solution cleared up, so I make no apology for introducing this old "teaser."
For years, my younger friends have been constantly asking me about this little puzzle. Most kids seem to know it, yet, strangely enough, they always seem to be unaware of the answer. The question they always ask is, "Please, tell me if it's really possible." I believe Houdin the magician used to enjoy sharing it with his young friends, but I can't say for sure if he created the puzzle or not. I'm sure many of my readers will be happy to have the mystery of the solution revealed, so I won't apologize for bringing up this old "teaser."
The puzzle is to draw with three strokes of the pencil the diagram that the little girl is exhibiting in the illustration. Of course, you must not remove your pencil from the paper during a stroke or go over the same line a second time. You will find that you can get Pg 69in a good deal of the figure with one continuous stroke, but it will always appear as if four strokes are necessary.
The challenge is to create the diagram that the little girl is showing in the illustration using just three pencil strokes. You can't lift your pencil off the paper during a stroke or retrace the same line. You'll notice that you can cover a lot of the figure with one continuous stroke, but it will always seem like you need four strokes. Pg 69

Another form of the puzzle is to draw the diagram on a slate and then rub it out in three rubs.
Another way to solve the puzzle is to draw the diagram on a chalkboard and then erase it in three swipes.

The illustration is a rough sketch somewhat resembling the British flag, the Union Jack. It is not possible to draw the whole of it without lifting the pencil from the paper or going over the same line twice. The puzzle is to find out just how much of the drawing it is possible to make without lifting your pencil or going twice over the same line. Take your pencil and see what is the best you can do.
The illustration is a rough sketch that somewhat looks like the British flag, the Union Jack. You can't draw the entire thing without lifting your pencil off the paper or going over the same line twice. The challenge is to figure out just how much of the drawing you can complete without lifting your pencil or going over any line more than once. Grab your pencil and see what you can accomplish.
How many continuous strokes, without lifting your pencil from the paper, do you require to draw the design shown in our illustration? Directly you change the direction of your pencil it begins a new stroke. You may go over the same line more than once if you like. It requires just a little care, or you may find yourself beaten by one stroke.
How many continuous strokes, without lifting your pencil from the paper, do you need to draw the design shown in our illustration? As soon as you change the direction of your pencil, it counts as a new stroke. You can go over the same line more than once if you want. It just takes a little care, or you might end up stuck with one stroke.

The man in our illustration is in a little dilemma. He has just been appointed inspector of a certain system of tube railways, and it is his duty to inspect regularly, within a stated period, all the company's seventeen lines connecting twelve stations, as shown on the big poster plan that he is contemplating. Now he wants to arrange his route so that it shall take him over all the lines with as little travelling as possible. He may begin where he likes and end where he likes. What is his shortest route?
The man in our illustration is facing a bit of a dilemma. He has just been appointed inspector of a tube railway system and needs to inspect all seventeen lines connecting twelve stations within a set time frame, as shown on the large poster plan he is examining. Now he wants to plan his route to cover all the lines with as little travel as possible. He can start and finish wherever he wants. What’s the shortest route he can take?
Could anything be simpler? But the reader will soon find that, however he decides to proceed, the inspector must go over some of the lines more than once. In other words, if we say that the stations are a mile apart, he will have to travel more than seventeen miles to inspect every line. There is the little difficulty. How far is he compelled to travel, and which route do you recommend?
Could anything be simpler? But the reader will soon realize that, no matter how he chooses to move forward, the inspector will have to go over some of the lines multiple times. In other words, if we say that the stations are a mile apart, he will need to travel over seventeen miles to check every line. That's the little challenge. How far is he required to travel, and which route would you suggest?


A traveller, starting from town No. 1, wishes to visit every one of the towns once, and once only, going only by roads indicated by straight lines. How many different routes are there from which he can select? Of course, he must end his journey at No. 1, from which he started, and must take no notice of cross roads, but go straight from town to town. This is an absurdly easy puzzle, if you go the right way to work.
A traveler, starting from town No. 1, wants to visit each of the towns once and only once, using only the roads shown as straight lines. How many different routes can he choose from? He must, of course, finish his journey back at No. 1, where he began, and he must ignore any cross roads, traveling directly from town to town. This is an incredibly simple puzzle if you approach it the right way.
Here is another queer travelling puzzle, the solution of which calls for ingenuity. In this case the traveller starts from the black town and wishes to go as far as possible while making only fifteen turnings and never going along the same road twice. The towns are supposed to be a mile apart. Supposing, for example, that he went straight to A, then straight to B, then to C, D, E, and F, you will then find that he has travelled thirty-seven miles in five turnings. Now, how far can he go in fifteen turnings?
Here’s another interesting travel puzzle that requires some clever thinking. In this scenario, the traveler starts from the black town and wants to go as far as he can by making only fifteen turns without traveling the same road twice. The towns are assumed to be a mile apart. For example, if he travels straight to A, then to B, then to C, D, E, and F, he would have traveled thirty-seven miles in five turns. Now, how far can he go in fifteen turns?

"Look here," said the professor to his colleague, "I have been watching that fly on the octahedron, and it confines its walks entirely to the edges. What can be its reason for avoiding the sides?"
"Hey," said the professor to his colleague, "I've been watching that fly on the octahedron, and it only walks along the edges. Why do you think it's avoiding the sides?"
"Perhaps it is trying to solve some route problem," suggested the other. "Supposing it to start from the top point, how many different routes are there by which it may walk over all the edges, without ever going twice along the same edge in any route?"
"Maybe it's trying to figure out some kind of route problem," suggested the other. "If we assume it starts from the top point, how many different routes can it take to walk over all the edges without ever going along the same edge twice in any route?"

The problem was a harder one than they expected, and after working at it during leisure moments for several days their results did not agree—in fact, they were both wrong. If the reader is surprised at their failure, let him attempt the little puzzle himself. I will just explain that the octahedron is one of the five regular, or Platonic, bodies, and is contained under eight equal and equilateral triangles. If you cut out the two pieces of cardboard of the shape shown in the margin of the illustration, cut half through along the dotted lines and then bend them and put them together, you will have a perfect octahedron. In any route over all the edges it will be found that the fly must end at the point of departure at the top.
The problem turned out to be tougher than they anticipated, and after spending their free time on it for several days, their results didn’t match—in fact, they were both incorrect. If the reader is surprised by their failure, they should try the little puzzle themselves. I’ll just clarify that the octahedron is one of the five regular, or Platonic, solids, and is made up of eight equal and equilateral triangles. If you cut out the two pieces of cardboard in the shape shown in the margin of the illustration, cut halfway along the dotted lines, and then bend them to put them together, you'll create a perfect octahedron. On any path along all the edges, the fly will find that it must end back at the starting point at the top.
The icosahedron is another of the five regular, or Platonic, bodies having all their sides, angles, and planes similar and equal. It is bounded by twenty similar equilateral triangles. If you cut out a piece of cardboard of the form shown in the smaller diagram, and cut half through along the dotted lines, it will fold up and form a perfect icosahedron.
The icosahedron is one of the five regular, or Platonic, solids, where all its faces, angles, and planes are identical and equal. It has twenty identical equilateral triangles as its faces. If you cut out a piece of cardboard shaped like the one in the smaller diagram and make cuts halfway along the dotted lines, you can fold it up to create a perfect icosahedron.
Now, a Platonic body does not mean a Pg 71heavenly body; but it will suit the purpose of our puzzle if we suppose there to be a habitable planet of this shape. We will also suppose that, owing to a superfluity of water, the only dry land is along the edges, and that the inhabitants have no knowledge of navigation. If every one of those edges is 10,000 miles long and a solitary traveller is placed at the North Pole (the highest point shown), how far will he have to travel before he will have visited every habitable part of the planet—that is, have traversed every one of the edges?
Now, a Platonic body doesn’t refer to a heavenly body; instead, it will help our puzzle if we imagine a habitable planet shaped like this. We'll also assume that, due to an excess of water, the only dry land is along the edges, and that the inhabitants have no knowledge of navigation. If each of those edges is 10,000 miles long and a lone traveler starts at the North Pole (the highest point shown), how far will they have to travel to visit every habitable part of the planet—that is, to cover every one of the edges?

The diagram is supposed to represent the passages or galleries in a mine. We will assume that every passage, A to B, B to C, C to H, H to I, and so on, is one furlong in length. It will be seen that there are thirty-one of these passages. Now, an official has to inspect all of them, and he descends by the shaft to the point A. How far must he travel, and what route do you recommend? The reader may at first say, "As there are thirty-one passages, each a furlong in length, he will have to travel just thirty-one furlongs." But this is assuming that he need never go along a passage more than once, which is not the case. Take your pencil and try to find the shortest route. You will soon discover that there is room for considerable judgment. In fact, it is a perplexing puzzle.
The diagram is supposed to show the tunnels or hallways in a mine. We'll assume that each passage, from A to B, B to C, C to H, H to I, and so on, is one furlong long. It's clear there are thirty-one of these passages. Now, an official needs to inspect all of them, and he goes down the shaft to point A. How far does he need to travel, and what route do you suggest? At first, the reader might think, "Since there are thirty-one passages, each a furlong long, he will have to travel thirty-one furlongs." But that assumes he doesn’t have to travel down any passage more than once, which isn't true. Grab a pencil and try to figure out the shortest route. You’ll soon see that there’s a lot of room for judgment. In fact, it’s quite a tricky puzzle.

Two cyclists were consulting a road map in preparation for a little tour together. The circles represent towns, and all the good roads are represented by lines. They are starting from the town with a star, and must complete their tour at E. But before arriving there they want to visit every other town once, and only once. That is the difficulty. Mr. Spicer said, "I am certain we can find a way of doing it;" but Mr. Maggs replied, "No way, I'm sure." Now, which of them was correct? Take your pencil and see if you can find any way of doing it. Of course you must keep to the roads indicated.
Two cyclists were looking at a road map to plan a little trip together. The circles show the towns, and the lines represent all the good roads. They are starting from the town marked with a star and need to end their trip at E. However, before they get there, they want to visit every other town one time only. That’s the challenge. Mr. Spicer said, "I'm sure we can figure it out," but Mr. Maggs replied, "There’s no way, I'm convinced." So, who was right? Grab your pencil and see if you can find a solution. Just remember to stick to the marked roads.

The sailor depicted in the illustration stated that he had since his boyhood been engaged in trading with a small vessel among some twenty little islands in the Pacific. He supplied the rough chart of which I have given a copy, and explained that the lines from island to island represented the only routes that he ever adopted. He always started from island A at the beginning of the season, and then visited every island Pg 72once, and once only, finishing up his tour at the starting-point A. But he always put off his visit to C as long as possible, for trade reasons that I need not enter into. The puzzle is to discover his exact route, and this can be done with certainty. Take your pencil and, starting at A, try to trace it out. If you write down the islands in the order in which you visit them—thus, for example, A, I, O, L, G, etc.—you can at once see if you have visited an island twice or omitted any. Of course, the crossings of the lines must be ignored—that is, you must continue your route direct, and you are not allowed to switch off at a crossing and proceed in another direction. There is no trick of this kind in the puzzle. The sailor knew the best route. Can you find it?
The sailor in the illustration mentioned that he had been trading with a small boat among about twenty small islands in the Pacific since he was a boy. He provided the rough map I've included a copy of and explained that the lines connecting the islands represented the only routes he ever used. He always started from island A at the season's beginning, visiting each island Pg 72once and only once, finishing his journey back at A. However, he always delayed his visit to C for trade reasons that I won’t go into. The challenge is to figure out his exact route, which can definitely be done. Grab a pencil and start at A to trace it out. If you note down the islands in the order you visit them—like A, I, O, L, G, etc.—you’ll quickly see if you’ve visited an island more than once or skipped any. Of course, you should ignore where the lines cross—you need to stick to your direct route and can't divert at a crossing to go in a different direction. There’s no trick like that in the puzzle. The sailor knew the best way. Can you figure it out?

One of the everyday puzzles of life is the working out of routes. If you are taking a holiday on your bicycle, or a motor tour, there always arises the question of how you are to make the best of your time and other resources. You have determined to get as far as some particular place, to include visits to such-and-such a town, to try to see something of special interest elsewhere, and perhaps to try to look up an old friend at a spot that will not take you much out of your way. Then you have to plan your route so as to avoid bad roads, uninteresting country, and, if possible, the necessity of a return by the same way that you went. With a map before you, the interesting puzzle is attacked and solved. I will present a little poser based on these lines.
One of the everyday challenges of life is figuring out routes. If you're going on a bike trip or a road trip, you'll always face the question of how to make the best use of your time and resources. You’ve decided to reach a specific destination, plan to visit certain towns, want to see something interesting elsewhere, and maybe catch up with an old friend along the way that won’t take you too far off track. Then you need to chart your route to avoid bad roads, dull scenery, and, if possible, having to return the same way you came. With a map in front of you, this intriguing puzzle can be tackled and solved. I’ll present a little challenge based on this.
I give a rough map of a country—it is not necessary to say what particular country—the circles representing towns and the dotted lines the railways connecting them. Now there lived in the town marked A a man who was born there, and during the whole of his life had never once left his native place. From his youth upwards he had been very industrious, sticking incessantly to his trade, and had no desire whatever to roam abroad. However, on attaining his fiftieth birthday he decided to see something of his country, and especially to pay a visit to a very old friend living at the town marked Z. Pg 73What he proposed was this: that he would start from his home, enter every town once and only once, and finish his journey at Z. As he made up his mind to perform this grand tour by rail only, he found it rather a puzzle to work out his route, but he at length succeeded in doing so. How did he manage it? Do not forget that every town has to be visited once, and not more than once.
I’m providing a rough map of a country—it doesn't matter which one—the circles represent towns, and the dotted lines show the railways connecting them. In the town shown as A, there lived a man who was born there and had never left his hometown his entire life. Since he was young, he had been very hardworking, devoted to his trade, and had no desire to travel elsewhere. However, when he turned fifty, he decided to explore his country and especially to visit a very old friend living in the town marked Z. What he planned was this: he would start from home, visit each town exactly once, and end his journey in Z. As he was determined to do this grand tour only by train, he found it quite challenging to figure out his route, but he eventually managed to work it out. How did he accomplish it? Remember, every town must be visited once and only once. Pg 73

There are some half-dozen puzzles, as old as the hills, that are perpetually cropping up, and there is hardly a month in the year that does not bring inquiries as to their solution. Occasionally one of these, that one had thought was an extinct volcano, bursts into eruption in a surprising manner. I have received an extraordinary number of letters respecting the ancient puzzle that I have called "Water, Gas, and Electricity." It is much older than electric lighting, or even gas, but the new dress brings it up to date. The puzzle is to lay on water, gas, and electricity, from W, G, and E, to each of the three houses, A, B, and C, without any pipe crossing another. Take your pencil and draw lines showing how this should be done. You will soon find yourself landed in difficulties.
There are about six classic puzzles, as old as time, that keep coming up, and there's hardly a month that goes by without questions about their solutions. Occasionally, one of these puzzles, which you thought was long forgotten, surprises you by resurfacing. I've received a surprising number of messages about the old puzzle I call "Water, Gas, and Electricity." It's much older than electric lighting or even gas, but the new framing makes it feel modern. The challenge is to connect water, gas, and electricity, represented by W, G, and E, to each of the three houses, A, B, and C, without any pipes crossing each other. Grab a pencil and draw lines to show how this can be done. You'll quickly find yourself facing some challenges.


Eight motorists drove to church one morning. Their respective houses and churches, together with the only roads available (the dotted lines), are shown. One went from his house A to his church A, another from his house B to his church B, another from C to C, and so on, but it was afterwards found that no driver ever crossed the track of another car. Take your pencil and try to trace out their various routes.
Eight drivers went to church one morning. Their homes and churches, along with the only available roads (the dotted lines), are shown. One drove from his home A to his church A, another from his home B to his church B, another from C to C, and so on, but it was later discovered that no driver ever crossed another car's path. Grab your pencil and try to map out their different routes.
Two friends were spending their bank holiday on a cycling trip. Stopping for a rest at a village inn, they consulted a route map, which is represented in our illustration in an exceedingly simplified form, for the puzzle is interesting enough without all the original complexities. They started from the town in the top left-hand corner marked A. It will be seen that there are one hundred and twenty such towns, all connected by straight roads. Now they discovered that there are exactly 1,365 different routes by which they may reach their destinaPg 74tion, always travelling either due south or due east. The puzzle is to discover which town is their destination.
Two friends were spending their bank holiday on a cycling trip. They took a break at a village inn and checked a route map, which we've simplified in our illustration because the puzzle is interesting enough without all the original complexities. They started from the town in the top left corner marked A. There are one hundred and twenty towns, all connected by straight roads. They found out that there are exactly 1,365 different routes they can take to reach their destination, always going either directly south or directly east. The challenge is to figure out which town their destination is.

Of course, if you find that there are more than 1,365 different routes to a town it cannot be the right one.
Of course, if you discover that there are more than 1,365 different ways to get to a town, it probably isn't the right one.

In the above diagram the circles represent towns and the lines good roads. In just how many different ways can a motorist, starting from London (marked with an L), make a tour of all these towns, visiting every town once, and only once, on a tour, and always coming back to London on the last ride? The exact reverse of any route is not counted as different.
In the diagram above, the circles represent towns and the lines represent good roads. In how many different ways can a driver, starting from London (marked with an L), tour all these towns, visiting each one only once and coming back to London at the end? The exact reverse of any route is not counted as different.

This is a simple counting puzzle. In how many different ways can you spell out the word LEVEL by placing the point of your pencil on an L and then passing along the lines from letter to letter. You may go in any direction, backwards or forwards. Of course you are not allowed to miss letters—that is to say, if you come to a letter you must use it.
This is a simple counting puzzle. In how many different ways can you spell the word LEVEL by starting at an L and then moving along the lines from letter to letter? You can go in any direction, forwards or backwards. Of course, you can't skip any letters—that means if you reach a letter, you have to use it.
IN how many different ways may the word DIAMOND be read in the arrangement shown? You may start wherever you like at a D and go up or down, backwards or forwards, in and out, in any direction you like, so long as you always pass from one letter to another that adjoins it. How many ways are there?
IN how many different ways can the word DIAMOND be read in the arrangement shown? You can start at any D and move up or down, backward or forward, in and out, in any direction you choose, as long as you always go from one letter to an adjacent one. How many ways are there?



Here we have, perhaps, the most interesting form of the puzzle. In how many different ways can you read the political injunction, "RISE TO VOTE, SIR," under the same conditions as before? In this case every reading of the palindrome requires the use of the central V as the middle letter.
Here we have, maybe, the most intriguing version of the puzzle. In how many different ways can you interpret the political message, "RISE TO VOTE, SIR," under the same conditions as before? In this case, every interpretation of the palindrome needs to use the central V as the middle letter.
A man was in love with a young lady whose Christian name was Hannah. When he asked her to be his wife she wrote down the letters of her name in this manner:—
A man was in love with a young woman named Hannah. When he asked her to marry him, she wrote her name like this:—

and promised that she would be his if he could tell her correctly in how many different ways it was possible to spell out her name, always passing from one letter to another that was adjacent. Diagonal steps are here allowed. Whether she did this merely to tease him or to test his cleverness is not recorded, but it is satisfactory to know that he succeeded. Would you have been equally successful? Take your pencil and try. You may start from any of the H's and go backwards or forwards and in any direction, so long as all the letters in a spelling are adjoining one another. How many ways are there, no two exactly alike?
and promised that she would be his if he could correctly figure out how many different ways he could spell her name, moving only to letters that were next to each other. Diagonal moves were allowed. It's unclear if she did this just to tease him or to see how clever he was, but it's nice to know that he got it right. Would you have been just as successful? Grab a pencil and give it a shot. You can start from any of the H's and go backward or forward in any direction, as long as all the letters in your spelling are next to each other. How many unique ways can you find?

Here is a little puzzle with the simplest possible conditions. Place the point of your pencil on a letter in one of the cells of the honeycomb, and trace out a very familiar proverb by passing always from a cell to one that is contiguous to it. If you take the right route you will have visited every cell once, and only once. The puzzle is much easier than it looks.
Here’s a simple puzzle with the easiest rules. Put the tip of your pencil on a letter in one of the cells of the honeycomb and trace a well-known proverb by moving only to adjacent cells. If you choose the correct path, you’ll visit each cell once and only once. The puzzle is much simpler than it seems.
In this case I give a rough plan of a river with an island and five bridges. On one side of the river is a monastery, and on the other side is seen a monk in the foreground. Now, the monk has decided that he will cross every bridge once, and only once, on his return to the monastery. This is, of course, quite easy to do, but on the way he thought to himself, "I wonder how many different routes there are from which I might have selected." Could you have told him? That is the puzzle. Take your pencil and trace out a route that will take you once Pg 76over all the five bridges. Then trace out a second route, then a third, and see if you can count all the variations. You will find that the difficulty is twofold: you have to avoid dropping routes on the one hand and counting the same routes more than once on the other.
In this case, I’m giving a simple layout of a river with an island and five bridges. On one side of the river is a monastery, and on the other side, we see a monk in the foreground. The monk has decided he will cross each bridge once, and only once, on his way back to the monastery. This is obviously easy to accomplish, but while he’s doing it, he thinks to himself, "I wonder how many different routes I could have taken." Could you have told him? That’s the puzzle. Grab your pencil and trace a route that crosses all five bridges once. Then trace a second route, and a third, and see if you can count all the variations. You’ll find that there are two challenges: you need to avoid missing routes on one hand and counting the same routes more than once on the other.

COMBINATION AND GROUP PROBLEMS.
"A combination and a form indeed."
Hamlet, iii. 4.
"A mix and a shape for sure."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4.
Various puzzles in this class might be termed problems in the "geometry of situation," but their solution really depends on the theory of combinations which, in its turn, is derived directly from the theory of permutations. It has seemed convenient to include here certain group puzzles and enumerations that might, perhaps, with equal reason have been placed elsewhere; but readers are again asked not to be too critical about the classification, which is very difficult and arbitrary. As I have included my problem of "The Round Table" (No. 273), perhaps a few remarks on another well-known problem of the same class, known by the French as La Problême des Ménages, may be interesting. If n married ladies are seated at a round table in any determined order, in how many different ways may their n husbands be placed so that every man is between two ladies but never next to his own wife?
Various puzzles in this class might be called problems in the "geometry of situation," but their solutions really depend on the theory of combinations, which is directly derived from the theory of permutations. It seemed practical to include certain group puzzles and counts here that could, perhaps, have been placed elsewhere equally well; however, readers are once again asked not to be too critical about the classification, which is quite challenging and arbitrary. Since I've included my problem of "The Round Table" (No. 273), a few comments on another well-known problem of the same type, known in French as La Problême des Ménages, may be interesting. If n married ladies are seated at a round table in a specific order, how many different ways can their n husbands be arranged so that every man is between two ladies but never next to his own wife?
This difficult problem was first solved by Laisant, and the method shown in the following table is due to Moreau:—
This tough problem was first solved by Laisant, and the method shown in the following table is from Moreau:—
4 | 0 | 2 |
5 | 3 | 13 |
6 | 13 | 80 |
7 | 83 | 579 |
8 | 592 | 4738 |
9 | 4821 | 43387 |
10 | 43979 | 439792 |
The first column shows the number of married couples. The numbers in the second column are obtained in this way: 5 × 3 + 0 - 2 = 13; 6 × 13 + 3 + 2 = 83; 7 × 83 + 13 - 2 = 592; 8 × 592 + 83 + 2 = 4821; and so on. Find all the numbers, except 2, in the table, and the method will be evident. It will be noted that the 2 is subtracted when the first number (the number of couples) is odd, and added when that number is even. The numbers in the third column are obtained thus: 13 - 0 = 13; 83 - 3 = 80; 592 - 13 = 579; 4821 - 83 = 4738; and so on. The numbers in this last column give the required solutions. Thus, four husbands may be seated in two ways, five husbands may be placed in thirteen ways, and six husbands in eighty ways.
The first column shows the number of married couples. The numbers in the second column are calculated like this: 5 × 3 + 0 - 2 = 13; 6 × 13 + 3 + 2 = 83; 7 × 83 + 13 - 2 = 592; 8 × 592 + 83 + 2 = 4821; and so on. Find all the numbers, except 2, in the table, and the method will be clear. It is important to note that 2 is subtracted when the first number (the number of couples) is odd, and added when that number is even. The numbers in the third column are calculated this way: 13 - 0 = 13; 83 - 3 = 80; 592 - 13 = 579; 4821 - 83 = 4738; and so on. The numbers in this last column provide the required solutions. Therefore, four husbands can be seated in two ways, five husbands can be arranged in thirteen ways, and six husbands can be arranged in eighty ways.
The following method, by Lucas, will show the remarkable way in which chessboard analysis may be applied to the solution of a circular problem of this kind. Divide a square into thirty-six cells, six by six, and strike out all the cells in the long diagonal from the bottom left-hand corner to the top right-hand corner, also the five cells in the diagonal next above it and the cell in the bottom right-hand corner. The answer for six couples will be the same as the number of ways in which you can place six rooks (not using the cancelled cells) so that no rook shall ever attack another rook. It will be found that the six rooks may be placed in eighty different ways, which agrees with the above table.
The following method by Lucas demonstrates an impressive way to use chessboard analysis for solving this type of circular problem. Start by dividing a square into thirty-six cells, arranged six by six, then remove all the cells along the long diagonal from the bottom left corner to the top right corner, along with the five cells diagonally above it and the cell in the bottom right corner. The number of arrangements for six pairs is the same as the ways you can place six rooks (not using the removed cells) so that no rook can attack another. You’ll find that the six rooks can be arranged in eighty different ways, which matches the table above.
A certain cyclopædia has the following curious problem, I am told: "Place fifteen sheep in four pens so that there shall be the same number of sheep in each pen." No answer whatever is vouchsafed, so I thought I would investigate the matter. I saw that in dealing with apples or bricks the thing would appear to be quite impossible, since four times any number must be an even number, while fifteen is an odd number. I thought, therefore, that there must be some quality peculiar to the sheep that was not generally known. So I decided to interview some farmers on the subject. The first one pointed out that if we put one pen inside another, like the rings of a target, and placed all sheep in the smallest pen, it would be all right. But I objected to this, because you admittedly place all the sheep in one pen, not in four pens. The second man said that if I placed four sheep in each of three pens and three sheep in the last pen (that is fifteen sheep in all), and one of the ewes in the last pen had a lamb during the night, there would be the same number in each pen in the morning. This also failed to satisfy me.
I heard about a strange problem from a certain encyclopedia: "Put fifteen sheep into four pens so that each pen has the same number of sheep." No answer was given, so I decided to look into it. I realized that if we were talking about apples or bricks, it would seem impossible since four times any number must be even, while fifteen is odd. I thought there must be something unique about the sheep that isn’t widely understood. So, I decided to talk to some farmers about it. The first farmer told me that if we put one pen inside another, like the rings on a target, and put all the sheep in the smallest pen, it would work. But I disagreed because that means all the sheep are in one pen, not in four. The second farmer suggested that if I put four sheep in each of three pens and three sheep in the last pen (making fifteen in total), and if one of the ewes in the last pen had a lamb during the night, then there would be the same number in each pen by morning. This also didn’t convince me.

The third farmer said, "I've got four hurdle pens down in one of my fields, and a small flock of wethers, so if you will just step down with me I will show you how it is done." The illustration depicts my friend as he is about to demonstrate the matter to me. His lucid explanation was evidently that which was in the mind of the writer of the article in the cyclopædia. What was it? Can you place those fifteen sheep?
The third farmer said, "I have four hurdle pens in one of my fields and a small flock of wethers, so if you come with me, I'll show you how it's done." The illustration shows my friend just about to demonstrate it to me. His clear explanation was clearly what the writer of the article in the encyclopedia had in mind. What was it? Can you find those fifteen sheep?
King Arthur sat at the Round Table on three successive evenings with his knights—Beleobus, Caradoc, Driam, Eric, Floll, and Galahad—but on no occasion did any person have as his neighbour one who had before sat next to him. On the first evening they sat in alphabetical order round the table. But afterwards King Arthur arranged the two next sittings so that he might have Beleobus as near to him as possible and Galahad as far away from him as could be managed. How did he seat the knights to the best advantage, remembering that rule that no knight may have the same neighbour twice?
King Arthur sat at the Round Table on three consecutive evenings with his knights—Beleobus, Caradoc, Driam, Eric, Floll, and Galahad—but at no time did anyone sit next to someone they had sat beside before. On the first evening, they arranged themselves in alphabetical order around the table. However, for the next two evenings, King Arthur organized the seating to keep Beleobus as close to him as possible and Galahad as far away as he could manage. How did he arrange the knights to optimize the seating, keeping in mind the rule that no knight may have the same neighbor twice?
Twelve men connected with a large firm in the City of London sit down to luncheon together every day in the same room. The tables are small ones that only accommodate two persons at the same time. Can you show how these twelve men may lunch together on eleven days in pairs, so that no two of them shall ever sit twice together? We will represent the men by the first twelve letters of the alphabet, and suppose the first day's pairing to be as follows—
Twelve men from a big company in the City of London have lunch in the same room every day. The tables are small and only fit two people at a time. Can you figure out how these twelve men can have lunch together over eleven days in pairs, so that no two of them ever sit together more than once? We'll use the first twelve letters of the alphabet to represent the men, and let's say the pairings for the first day are as follows—
(A B) (C D) (E F) (G H) (I J) (K L).
(A B) (C D) (E F) (G H) (I J) (K L).
Then give any pairing you like for the next day, say—
Then share any combination you want for the next day, like—
(A C) (B D) (E G) (F H) (I K) (J L),
(A C) (B D) (E G) (F H) (I K) (J L),
and so on, until you have completed your eleven lines, with no pair ever occurring twice. There are a good many different arrangements possible. Try to find one of them.
and so on, until you've finished your eleven lines, ensuring no pair appears more than once. There are many different arrangements possible. See if you can find one of them.
Twelve members of a club arranged to play bridge together on eleven evenings, but no player was ever to have the same partner more than once, or the same opponent more than twice. Can you draw up a scheme showing how they may all sit down at three tables every evening? Call the twelve players by the first twelve letters of the alphabet and try to group them.
Twelve members of a club planned to play bridge together on eleven evenings, but no player was ever supposed to have the same partner more than once, or the same opponent more than twice. Can you create a plan showing how they can all sit down at three tables every evening? Name the twelve players using the first twelve letters of the alphabet and try to organize them.
Four married couples played a "mixed double" tennis tournament, a man and a lady always playing against a man and a lady. But no person ever played with or against any other person more than once. Can you show how they all could have played together in the two courts on three successive days? This is a little puzzle of a quite practical kind, and it is just perplexing enough to be interesting.
Four married couples played a "mixed doubles" tennis tournament, with a man and a woman always competing against another man and woman. However, no one ever played with or against the same person more than once. Can you figure out how they all could have played together on the two courts over three consecutive days? This is a fun puzzle that's practical and just challenging enough to be engaging.
"One of the most perplexing things I have come across lately," said Mr. Wilson, "is this. Eight men had been dining not wisely but too well at a certain London restaurant. They were the last to leave, but not one man was in a condition to identify his own hat. Now, considering that they took their hats at random, what are the chances that every man took a hat that did not belong to him?"
"One of the most puzzling things I’ve come across lately," said Mr. Wilson, "is this. Eight men had been dining, not wisely but too lavishly, at a certain London restaurant. They were the last to leave, but not one of them was in a state to identify his own hat. Now, considering that they picked their hats at random, what are the odds that every man took a hat that didn’t belong to him?"
"The first thing," said Mr. Waterson, "is to see in how many different ways the eight hats could be taken."
"The first thing," said Mr. Waterson, "is to look at all the different ways the eight hats could be taken."
"That is quite easy," Mr. Stubbs explained. "Multiply together the numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Let me see—half a minute—yes; there are 40,320 different ways."
"That's pretty simple," Mr. Stubbs said. "Just multiply the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 together. Give me a moment—okay; there are 40,320 different combinations."
"Now all you've got to do is to see in how many of these cases no man has his own hat," said Mr. Waterson.
"Now all you have to do is see how many of these cases there are where no man has his own hat," said Mr. Waterson.
"Thank you, I'm not taking any," said Mr. Packhurst. "I don't envy the man who attempts the task of writing out all those forty-thousand-odd cases and then picking out the ones he wants."
"Thanks, I'm not interested," said Mr. Packhurst. "I don’t envy the guy who tries to go through all those forty-thousand-odd cases and then finds the ones he needs."
They all agreed that life is not long enough for that sort of amusement; and as nobody saw any other way of getting at the answer, the matter was postponed indefinitely. Can you solve the puzzle?
They all agreed that life isn't long enough for that kind of fun; and since nobody had any other ideas for finding the answer, they decided to put it off indefinitely. Can you solve the puzzle?
A correspondent, who is apparently much interested in campanology, asks me how he is to construct what he calls a "true and correct" peal for four bells. He says that every possible permutation of the four bells must be rung once, and once only. He adds that no bell must move more than one place at a time, that no bell must make more than two successive strokes in either the first or the last place, and that the last change must be able to pass into the first. These fantastic conditions will be found to be observed in the little peal for three bells, as follows:—
A reader who seems really interested in bell ringing asks me how to create what he calls a "true and correct" ringing sequence for four bells. He mentions that every possible arrangement of the four bells needs to be rung once and only once. He also points out that no bell can move more than one position at a time, that no bell can strike more than two times in a row in either the first or last position, and that the last change must be able to transition smoothly into the first. These unusual requirements can also be seen in the simple sequence for three bells, as follows:—
1 | 2 | 3 |
2 | 1 | 3 |
2 | 3 | 1 |
3 | 2 | 1 |
3 | 1 | 2 |
1 | 3 | 2 |
How are we to give him a correct solution for his four bells?
How are we supposed to give him the right solution for his four bells?
A certain generous London manufacturer gives his workmen every year a week's holiday at the seaside at his own expense. One year fifteen of his men paid a visit to Herne Bay. On the morning of their departure from London they were addressed by their employer, who expressed the hope that they would have a very pleasant time.
A generous manufacturer in London treats his workers to a week's holiday by the seaside every year, covering all the costs himself. One year, fifteen of his employees went to Herne Bay. On the morning they left London, their employer spoke to them, hoping they would have a great time.
"I have been given to understand," he added, "that some of you fellows are very fond of rowing, so I propose on this occasion to provide you with this recreation, and at the same time give you an amusing little puzzle to solve. During the seven days that you are at Herne Bay every one of you will go out every day at the same time for a row, but there must always be three men in a boat and no more. No two men may ever go out in a boat together more than once, and no man is allowed to go out twice in the same boat. If you can manage to do this, and use as few different boats as possible, you may charge the firm with the expense."
"I've heard," he added, "that some of you guys really enjoy rowing, so I'm going to set up this activity for you and throw in a fun little puzzle to figure out. For the seven days you're at Herne Bay, each of you will go out every day at the same time for a rowing session, but there have to be three men in each boat, no more. No two men can row together in the same boat more than once, and no man is allowed to row twice in the same boat. If you can pull this off and use as few different boats as possible, you can bill the company for the costs."
One of the men tells me that the experience he has gained in such matters soon enabled him to work out the answer to the entire satisfaction of themselves and their employer. But the amusing part of the thing is that they never really solved the little mystery. I find their method to have been quite incorrect, and I think it will amuse my readers to discover how the men should have been placed in the boats. As their names happen to have been Andrews, Baker, Carter, Danby, Edwards, Frith, Gay, Hart, Isaacs, Jackson, Kent, Lang, Mason, Napper, and Onslow, we can call them by their initials and write out the five groups for each of the seven days in the following simple way:
One of the guys tells me that the experience he gained in these situations quickly helped him figure out the answer that satisfied both themselves and their boss. But the funny thing is, they never really solved the little mystery. I find their approach to be totally wrong, and I think my readers will enjoy seeing how the men should have been arranged in the boats. Since their names were Andrews, Baker, Carter, Danby, Edwards, Frith, Gay, Hart, Isaacs, Jackson, Kent, Lang, Mason, Napper, and Onslow, we can refer to them by their initials and list out the five groups for each of the seven days in this straightforward way:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
First Day: | (ABC) | (DEF) | (GHI) | (JKL) | (MNO). |
The men within each pair of brackets are here seen to be in the same boat, and therefore A can never go out with B or with C again, and C can never go out again with B. The same applies to the other four boats. The figures show the number on the boat, so that A, B, or C, for example, can never go out in boat No. 1 again.
The guys in each pair of brackets are clearly in the same situation, so A can never hang out with B or C again, and C can never hang out with B again. The same goes for the other four boats. The numbers show which boat they’re on, meaning A, B, or C can't use boat No. 1 again.
A number of clever marksmen were staying at a country house, and the host, to provide a little amusement, suspended strings of glass balls, as shown in the illustration, to be fired Pg 79at. After they had all put their skill to a sufficient test, somebody asked the following question: "What is the total number of different ways in which these sixteen balls may be broken, if we must always break the lowest ball that remains on any string?" Thus, one way would be to break all the four balls on each string in succession, taking the strings from left to right. Another would be to break all the fourth balls on the four strings first, then break the three remaining on the first string, then take the balls on the three other strings alternately from right to left, and so on. There is such a vast number of different ways (since every little variation of order makes a different way) that one is apt to be at first impressed by the great difficulty of the problem. Yet it is really quite simple when once you have hit on the proper method of attacking it. How many different ways are there?
A group of skilled marksmen were staying at a country house, and the host, aiming to entertain them, hung strings of glass balls, as shown in the illustration, for them to shoot at. After everyone had tested their skill enough, someone asked, "What is the total number of different ways these sixteen balls can be broken, if we always have to break the lowest ball left on any string?" For example, one way would be to break all four balls on each string in order, going from left to right. Another way would be to start by breaking all the fourth balls on the four strings first, then break the three remaining on the first string, and then take the balls on the other three strings alternately from right to left, and so on. There are so many different ways (since every small change in order creates a different way) that it can initially seem very difficult to solve. However, it is actually quite simple once you find the right method to approach it. So, how many different ways are there?

ALE | FOE | HOD | BGN |
CAB | HEN | JOG | KFM |
HAG | GEM | MOB | BFH |
FAN | KIN | JEK | DFL |
JAM | HIM | GCL | LJH |
AID | JIB | FCJ | NJD |
OAK | FIG | HCK | MLN |
BED | OIL | MCD | BLK |
ICE | CON | DGK |
The above is the solution of a puzzle I gave in Tit-bits in the summer of 1896. It was required to take the letters, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O, and with them form thirty-five groups of three letters so that the combinations should include the greatest number possible of common English words. No two letters may appear together in a group more than once. Thus, A and L having been together in ALE, must never be found together again; nor may A appear again in a group with E, nor L with E. These conditions will be found complied with in the above solution, and the number of words formed is twenty-one. Many persons have since tried hard to beat this number, but so far have not succeeded.
The above is the solution to a puzzle I presented in Tit-bits during the summer of 1896. The task was to take the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O, and create thirty-five groups of three letters each, ensuring that the combinations included the maximum number of common English words. No two letters could appear together in a group more than once. For example, since A and L are together in ALE, they cannot be grouped again; A also cannot appear with E again, nor can L with E. These requirements are met in the solution above, resulting in twenty-one words formed. Many people have since tried hard to surpass this number, but so far, they have not succeeded.
More than thirty-five combinations of the fifteen letters cannot be formed within the conditions. Theoretically, there cannot possibly be more than twenty-three words formed, because only this number of combinations is possible with a vowel or vowels in each. And as no English word can be formed from three of the given vowels (A, E, I, and O), we must reduce the number of possible words to twenty-two. This is correct theoretically, but practically that twenty-second word cannot be got in. If JEK, shown above, were a word it would be all right; but it is not, and no amount of juggling with the other letters has resulted in a better answer than the one shown. I should, say that proper nouns and abbreviations, such as Joe, Jim, Alf, Hal, Flo, Ike, etc., are disallowed.
More than thirty-five combinations of the fifteen letters can’t be made within the conditions. Theoretically, no more than twenty-three words can be formed because that’s the highest number of combinations possible with at least one vowel included. And since no English word can be made with just three of the given vowels (A, E, I, and O), we need to lower the potential word count to twenty-two. This is theoretically accurate, but in practice, we can’t find that twenty-second word. If JEK, mentioned above, were a word, it would work; but it’s not, and no mix of the other letters has produced a better option than the one given. I should add that proper nouns and abbreviations, like Joe, Jim, Alf, Hal, Flo, Ike, etc., are not allowed.
Now, the present puzzle is a variation of the above. It is simply this: Instead of using the fifteen letters given, the reader is allowed to select any fifteen different letters of the alphabet that he may prefer. Then construct thirty-five Pg 80groups in accordance with the conditions, and show as many good English words as possible.
Now, the current puzzle is a variation of the previous one. It’s straightforward: instead of using the fifteen letters provided, the reader can choose any fifteen different letters from the alphabet they prefer. Then, create thirty-five Pg 80 groups according to the conditions, and showcase as many valid English words as possible.
This is a new and interesting companion puzzle to the "Fifteen Schoolgirls" (see solution of No. 269), and even in the simplest possible form in which I present it there are unquestionable difficulties. Nine schoolboys walk out in triplets on the six week days so that no boy ever walks side by side with any other boy more than once. How would you arrange them?
This is a new and interesting companion puzzle to the "Fifteen Schoolgirls" (see solution of No. 269), and even in the simplest form in which I present it, there are undeniable challenges. Nine schoolboys go out in groups of three on the six weekdays, ensuring that no boy ever walks side by side with any other boy more than once. How would you arrange them?
If we represent them by the first nine letters of the alphabet, they might be grouped on the first day as follows:—
If we represent them by the first nine letters of the alphabet, they could be organized on the first day like this:—
A | B | C |
D | E | F |
G | H | I |
Then A can never walk again side by side with B, or B with C, or D with E, and so on. But A can, of course, walk side by side with C. It is here not a question of being together in the same triplet, but of walking side by side in a triplet. Under these conditions they can walk out on six days; under the "Schoolgirls" conditions they can only walk on four days.
Then A can never walk again next to B, or B with C, or D with E, and so on. But A can, of course, walk next to C. It’s not about being together in the same group, but about walking side by side in a group. Under these conditions, they can walk out for six days; under the "Schoolgirls" conditions, they can only walk for four days.
Seat the same n persons at a round table on
Seat the same n people at a round table on
(n - 1)(n - 2) |
2 |
occasions so that no person shall ever have the same two neighbours twice. This is, of course, equivalent to saying that every person must sit once, and once only, between every possible pair.
occasions so that no person shall ever have the same two neighbors twice. This is, of course, the same as saying that everyone must sit once, and only once, between every possible pair.

This is a modern version, with a difference, of an old puzzle of the same name. Number twenty-one cards, 1, 2, 3, etc., up to 21, and place them in a circle in the particular order shown in the illustration. These cards represent mice. You start from any card, calling that card "one," and count, "one, two, three," etc., in a clockwise direction, and when your count agrees with the number on the card, you have made a "catch," and you remove the card. Then start at the next card, calling that "one," and try again to make another "catch." And so on. Supposing you start at 18, calling that card "one," your first "catch" will be 19. Remove 19 and your next "catch" is 10. Remove 10 and your next "catch" is 1. Remove the 1, and if you count up to 21 (you must never go beyond), you cannot make another "catch." Now, the ideal is to "catch" all the twenty-one mice, but this is not here possible, and if it were it would merely require twenty-one different trials, at the most, to succeed. But the reader may make any two cards change places before he begins. Thus, you can change the 6 with the 2, or the 7 with the 11, or any other pair. This can be done in several ways so as to enable you to "catch" all the twenty-one mice, if you then start at the right place. You may never pass over a "catch"; you must always remove the card and start afresh.
This is a modern take on an old puzzle with the same name. Number twenty-one cards, labeled 1, 2, 3, and so on up to 21, and arrange them in a circle as shown in the illustration. These cards represent mice. You can start from any card, calling that card "one," and count, "one, two, three," etc., in a clockwise direction. When your count matches the number on the card, you've made a "catch," and you remove the card. Then, move to the next card, call that "one," and try to make another "catch." And so on. For example, if you start at 18, calling that card "one," your first "catch" will be 19. Remove 19, and your next "catch" will be 10. Remove 10, and your next "catch" is 1. Remove the 1, and if you count up to 21 (you must never go beyond), you cannot make another "catch." The goal is to "catch" all twenty-one mice, but that's not possible here. If it were, it would only take twenty-one different attempts to succeed. However, the reader can switch any two cards before starting. So, you can swap the 6 with the 2, or the 7 with the 11, or any other pair. This can be done in various ways to help you "catch" all twenty-one mice if you start from the right card. You can never skip a "catch"; you must always remove the card and start over.

Here is a new puzzle with matches and counters or coins. In the illustration the matches represent hurdles and the counters sheep. The sixteen hurdles on the outside, and the sheep, must be regarded as immovable; the puzzle has to do entirely with the nine hurdles on the inside. It will be seen that at present these nine hurdles enclose four groups of 8, 3, 3, and 2 sheep. The farmer requires to readjust some of the hurdles so as to enclose 6, 6, and 4 sheep. Can you do it by only replacing two hurdles? When you have succeeded, then try to do it by replacing three hurdles; then four, five, six, and seven in succession. Of course, the hurdles must be legitimately laid on the dotted lines, and no such tricks are allowed as leaving unconnected ends of hurdles, or two hurdles placed side by side, or merely making hurdles change places. In fact, the conditions are so simple that any farm labourer will understand it directly.
Here’s a new puzzle involving matches and counters or coins. In the illustration, the matches represent barriers, and the counters represent sheep. The sixteen barriers on the outside and the sheep must be considered immovable; the puzzle focuses entirely on the nine barriers on the inside. Currently, these nine barriers enclose four groups of 8, 3, 3, and 2 sheep. The farmer needs to rearrange some of the barriers to enclose 6, 6, and 4 sheep. Can you do it by only replacing two barriers? Once you've succeeded, try replacing three barriers, then four, five, six, and seven in order. Of course, the barriers must be correctly placed on the dotted lines, and you can't leave unconnected ends of barriers, place two barriers side by side, or simply swap barriers. The rules are straightforward enough that any farmworker will understand them immediately.
In one of the outlying suburbs of London a man had a square plot of ground on which he Pg 81decided to build eight villas, as shown in the illustration, with a common recreation ground in the middle. After the houses were completed, and all or some of them let, he discovered that the number of occupants in the three houses forming a side of the square was in every case nine. He did not state how the occupants were distributed, but I have shown by the numbers on the sides of the houses one way in which it might have happened. The puzzle is to discover the total number of ways in which all or any of the houses might be occupied, so that there should be nine persons on each side. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I will explain that although B is what we call a reflection of A, these would count as two different arrangements, while C, if it is turned round, will give four arrangements; and if turned round in front of a mirror, four other arrangements. All eight must be counted.
In one of the outlying suburbs of London, a man had a square plot of land where he decided to build eight villas, as shown in the illustration, with a shared recreational area in the middle. After the houses were finished, and all or some of them were rented out, he found that the number of residents in the three houses on one side of the square was nine for each house. He didn’t specify how the residents were spread out, but I’ve illustrated one way it could have happened with the numbers next to the houses. The challenge is to figure out all the different ways the houses could be occupied so that there are nine people on each side. To avoid any confusion, I’ll clarify that even though B is what we call a reflection of A, these would be considered two distinct arrangements, while C, if rotated, will result in four arrangements; and if mirrored, it will yield four additional arrangements. All eight must be counted.

All that we need for this puzzle is nine counters, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. It will be seen that in the illustration A these are arranged so as to form a Greek cross, while in the case of B they form a Latin cross. In both cases the reader will find that the sum of the numbers in the upright of the cross is the same as the sum of the numbers in the horizontal arm. It is quite easy to hit on such an arrangement by trial, but the problem is to discover in exactly how many different ways it may be done in each case. Remember that reversals and reflections do not count as different. That is to say, if you turn this page round you get four arrangements of the Greek cross, and if you turn it round again in front of a mirror you will get four more. But these eight are all regarded as one and the same. Now, how many different ways are there in each case?
All we need for this puzzle is nine counters, numbered 1 through 9. In illustration A, these are arranged to form a Greek cross, while in illustration B, they form a Latin cross. In both cases, you'll notice that the sum of the numbers in the vertical part of the cross is the same as the sum of the numbers in the horizontal part. It's pretty easy to find such an arrangement by experimenting, but the challenge is to figure out exactly how many different ways it can be done in each case. Keep in mind that flips and reflections don’t count as different arrangements. In other words, if you turn this page around, you get four arrangements of the Greek cross, and if you turn it again in front of a mirror, you'll get four more. But all eight are considered the same. So, how many different ways are there in each case?

In a certain convent there were eight large dormitories on one floor, approached by a spiral staircase in the centre, as shown in our plan. On an inspection one Monday by the abbess it was found that the south aspect was so much preferred that six times as many nuns slept on the south side as on each of the other three sides. She objected to this overcrowding, and ordered that it should be reduced. On Tuesday she found that five times as many slept on the south side as on each of the other sides. Again she complained. On Wednesday she found four times as many on the south side, on Thursday three times as many, and on Friday twice as many. Urging the nuns to further efforts, she was pleased to find on Saturday that an equal number slept on each of the four Pg 82sides of the house. What is the smallest number of nuns there could have been, and how might they have arranged themselves on each of the six nights? No room may ever be unoccupied.
In a certain convent, there were eight large dormitories on one floor, accessed by a spiral staircase in the center, as shown in our plan. During an inspection one Monday by the abbess, it was discovered that the south side was so much favored that six times as many nuns slept on the south side compared to each of the other three sides. She objected to this overcrowding and ordered that it be reduced. On Tuesday, she found that five times as many nuns were sleeping on the south side as on the other sides. Again, she complained. On Wednesday, she found four times as many on the south side, on Thursday three times as many, and on Friday twice as many. Encouraging the nuns to make further efforts, she was pleased to see on Saturday that an equal number slept on each of the four Pg 82sides of the house. What is the smallest number of nuns there could have been, and how might they have arranged themselves on each of the six nights? No room may ever be unoccupied.


A merchant of Bagdad had ten barrels of precious balsam for sale. They were numbered, and were arranged in two rows, one on top of the other, as shown in the picture. The smaller the number on the barrel, the greater was its value. So that the best quality was numbered "1" and the worst numbered "10," and all the other numbers of graduating values. Now, the rule of Ahmed Assan, the merchant, was that he never put a barrel either beneath or to the right of one of less value. The arrangement shown is, of course, the simplest way of complying with this condition. But there are many other ways—such, for example, as this:—
A merchant from Baghdad had ten barrels of valuable balsam for sale. They were numbered and arranged in two rows, one on top of the other, as shown in the picture. The smaller the number on the barrel, the more valuable it was. So, the highest quality was numbered "1" and the lowest was numbered "10," with all the other numbers representing varying values. Ahmed Assan's rule as a merchant was that he never placed a barrel either below or to the right of one with a lower value. The arrangement shown is, of course, the simplest way to follow this rule. But there are many other ways—such, for example, as this:—
1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 |
Here, again, no barrel has a smaller number than itself on its right or beneath it. The puzzle is to discover in how many different ways the merchant of Bagdad might have arranged his barrels in the two rows without breaking his rule. Can you count the number of ways?
Here, again, no barrel has a smaller number than itself on its right or below it. The challenge is to figure out in how many different ways the merchant of Bagdad could have arranged his barrels in the two rows without breaking his rule. Can you count the number of ways?
I possess a tetrahedron, or triangular pyramid, formed of six sticks glued together, as shown in the illustration. Can you count correctly the number of different ways in which these six sticks might have been stuck together so as to form the pyramid?
I have a tetrahedron, or triangular pyramid, made of six sticks glued together, as shown in the picture. Can you figure out the number of different ways these six sticks could have been joined to create the pyramid?
Some friends worked at it together one evening, each person providing himself with six lucifer matches to aid his thoughts; but it was found that no two results were the same. You see, if we remove one of the sticks and turn it round the other way, that will be a different pyramid. If we make two of the sticks change Pg 83places the result will again be different. But remember that every pyramid may be made to stand on either of its four sides without being a different one. How many ways are there altogether?
Some friends worked on it together one evening, each person giving themselves six matches to help spark their ideas; but it turned out that no two results were the same. You see, if we take one of the sticks and flip it around, that will create a different pyramid. If we swap the positions of two of the sticks, the outcome will be different again. But keep in mind that every pyramid can be balanced on any of its four sides without being considered a different one. How many ways are there in total?

This puzzle concerns the painting of the four sides of a tetrahedron, or triangular pyramid. If you cut out a piece of cardboard of the triangular shape shown in Fig. 1, and then cut half through along the dotted lines, it will fold up and form a perfect triangular pyramid. And I would first remind my readers that the primary colours of the solar spectrum are seven—violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. When I was a child I was taught to remember these by the ungainly word formed by the initials of the colours, "Vibgyor."
This puzzle is about coloring the four sides of a tetrahedron, or triangular pyramid. If you cut out a piece of cardboard in the triangular shape shown in Fig. 1, and then cut halfway through along the dotted lines, it will fold up to create a perfect triangular pyramid. I want to remind my readers that the primary colors of the solar spectrum are seven—violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. When I was a kid, I learned to remember these using the awkward word made from the initials of the colors, "Vibgyor."

In how many different ways may the triangular pyramid be coloured, using in every case one, two, three, or four colours of the solar spectrum? Of course a side can only receive a single colour, and no side can be left uncoloured. But there is one point that I must make quite clear. The four sides are not to be regarded as individually distinct. That is to say, if you paint your pyramid as shown in Fig. 2 (where the bottom side is green and the other side that is out of view is yellow), and then paint another in the order shown in Fig. 3, these are really both the same and count as one way. For if you tilt over No. 2 to the right it will so fall as to represent No. 3. The avoidance of repetitions of this kind is the real puzzle of the thing. If a coloured pyramid cannot be placed so that it exactly resembles in its colours and their relative order another pyramid, then they are different. Remember that one way would be to colour all the four sides red, another to colour two sides green, and the remaining sides yellow and blue; and so on.
In how many different ways can the triangular pyramid be colored using one, two, three, or four colors from the solar spectrum? Of course, each side can only have one color, and none can be left uncolored. However, I need to clarify one important point. The four sides should not be seen as individually distinct. This means that if you paint your pyramid like in Fig. 2 (where the bottom side is green and the other side, which is out of view, is yellow), and then paint another in the order shown in Fig. 3, these are considered the same and count as one way. If you tilt No. 2 to the right, it will fall into the position of No. 3. Avoiding these kinds of repetitions is the real challenge here. If a colored pyramid cannot be positioned to exactly match another pyramid in colors and their relative order, then they are different. Keep in mind that one option would be to paint all four sides red, another could be to paint two sides green and the remaining sides yellow and blue, and so on.
An antiquary possessed a number of curious old links, which he took to a blacksmith, and told him to join together to form one straight piece of chain, with the sole condition that the two circular links were not to be together. The following illustration shows the appearance of the chain and the form of each link. Now, supposing the owner should separate the links again, and then take them to another smith and repeat his former instructions exactly, what are the chances against the links being put together exactly as they were by the first man? Remember that every successive link can be joined on to another in one of two ways, just as you can put a ring on your finger in two ways, or link your forefingers and thumbs in two ways.
An antique collector had several interesting old links, which he took to a blacksmith and asked him to connect them into one straight piece of chain, with the only condition being that the two circular links must not be next to each other. The following illustration shows what the chain looks like and the shape of each link. Now, if the owner were to separate the links again and then take them to another blacksmith and repeat his earlier instructions exactly, what are the odds that the links would be assembled exactly as they were by the first blacksmith? Keep in mind that each link can be attached to another in one of two ways, just like you can slip a ring onto your finger in two ways, or interlock your forefingers and thumbs in two ways.

In how many different ways may the fifteen dominoes be arranged in a straight line in accordance with the simple rule of the game that a number must always be placed against a similar number—that is, a four against a four, a blank against a blank, and so on? Left to right and right to left of the same arrangement are to be counted as two different ways.
In how many different ways can the fifteen dominoes be arranged in a straight line following the basic rule of the game that a number must always match another number — that is, a four against a four, a blank against a blank, and so on? Arrangements read from left to right and right to left are considered two distinct ways.

In the illustration we have a somewhat curious target designed by an eccentric sharpshooter. His idea was that in order to score you must hit four circles in as many shots so that those four shots shall form a square. It will be seen by the results recorded on the target that two attempts have been successful. The first man hit the four circles at the top of the cross, and thus formed his square. The second man intended to hit the four in the bottom arm, but his second shot, on the left, went too high. This compelled him to complete his four in a different way than he intended. It will thus be seen that though it is immaterial which circle you hit at the first shot, the second shot may commit you to a definite procedure if you are to get your square. Now, the puzzle is to say in just how many different ways it is possible to form a square on the target with four shots.
In the illustration, we see a fairly unusual target created by an eccentric sharpshooter. His idea was that to score, you must hit four circles in four shots so that those shots create a square. The results shown on the target indicate that two attempts were successful. The first person hit the four circles at the top of the cross, successfully forming his square. The second person aimed to hit the four in the bottom section, but his second shot on the left went too high. This forced him to finish his shots in a different way than he planned. Therefore, while it doesn’t matter which circle you hit first, your second shot can determine a specific course of action if you want to create your square. Now, the challenge is to figure out how many different ways it’s possible to form a square on the target with four shots.

"It is as easy as counting," is an expression one sometimes hears. But mere counting may be puzzling at times. Take the following simple example. Suppose you have just bought twelve postage stamps, in this form—three by four—and a friend asks you to oblige him with four stamps, all joined together—no stamp hanging on by a mere corner. In how many different ways is it possible for you to tear off those four stamps? You see, you can give him 1, 2, 3, 4, or 2, 3, 6, 7, or 1, 2, 3, 6, or 1, 2, 3, 7, or 2, 3, 4, 8, and so on. Can you count the number of different ways in which those four stamps might be delivered? There are not many more than fifty ways, so it is not a big count. Can you get the exact number?
"It’s as easy as counting," is something you might hear sometimes. But counting can actually be confusing at times. Take this simple example. Suppose you just bought twelve postage stamps arranged in a 3 by 4 grid, and your friend asks you to give him four stamps, all stuck together—no stamp hanging by just a corner. In how many different ways can you tear off those four stamps? You can give him 1, 2, 3, 4, or 2, 3, 6, 7, or 1, 2, 3, 6, or 1, 2, 3, 7, or 2, 3, 4, 8, and so on. Can you count how many different ways those four stamps can be given? There aren’t many more than fifty ways, so it’s not a huge count. Can you find the exact number?
In how many different ways may the numbers on a single die be marked, with the only condition that the 1 and 6, the 2 and 5, and the 3 and 4 must be on opposite sides? It is a simple enough question, and yet it will puzzle a good many people.
In how many different ways can the numbers on a single die be marked, with the only requirement that the 1 and 6, the 2 and 5, and the 3 and 4 must be on opposite sides? It’s a straightforward question, yet it will stump quite a few people.
In the making or solving of double acrostics, has it ever occurred to you to consider the variety and limitation of the pair of initial and final letters available for cross words? You may have to find a word beginning with A and ending with B, or A and C, or A and D, and so on. Some combinations are obviously impossible—such, for example, as those with Q at the end. But let us assume that a good English word can be found for every case. Then how many possible pairs of letters are available?
In creating or solving double acrostics, have you ever thought about the range and restriction of the starting and ending letters available for crosswords? You might need to find a word that starts with A and ends with B, or A and C, or A and D, and so on. Some combinations are clearly impossible—like those that end with Q. But let's assume that a proper English word can be found for every scenario. So, how many possible pairs of letters do we have?
CHESSBOARD PROBLEMS.
"You and I will goe to the chesse."
GREENE'S Groatsworth of Wit.
"You and I will go to the chess."
GREENE'S Groatsworth of Wit.
During a heavy gale a chimney-pot was hurled through the air, and crashed upon the pavement just in front of a pedestrian. He quite calmly said, "I have no use for it: I do not smoke." Some readers, when they happen to see a puzzle represented on a chessboard with chess pieces, are apt to make the equally inconsequent remark, "I have no use for it: I do not play chess." This is largely a result of the common, but erroneous, notion that the ordinary chess puzzle with which we are familiar in the press (dignified, for some reason, with the name "problem") has a vital connection with the game of chess itself. But there is no condition in the game that you shall checkmate your opponent in two moves, in three moves, or in four moves, while the majority of the positions given in these puzzles are such that one player would have so great a superiority in pieces that Pg 85the other would have resigned before the situations were reached. And the solving of them helps you but little, and that quite indirectly, in playing the game, it being well known that, as a rule, the best "chess problemists" are indifferent players, and vice versa. Occasionally a man will be found strong on both subjects, but he is the exception to the rule.
During a heavy storm, a chimney pot was thrown through the air and crashed onto the pavement right in front of a passerby. He calmly said, "I have no use for it; I don't smoke." Some readers, when they see a puzzle represented on a chessboard with chess pieces, tend to make the equally irrelevant comment, "I have no use for it; I don't play chess." This is largely due to the common but incorrect belief that the typical chess puzzle we encounter in the newspaper (somehow dignified with the name "problem") has an essential connection to the game of chess itself. However, there's no rule in the game that states you have to checkmate your opponent in two moves, three moves, or four moves, while most of the positions presented in these puzzles are such that one player has such a significant advantage in pieces that Pg 85 the other would have resigned long before those situations were reached. Solving these puzzles helps you very little, and mostly indirectly, in playing the game, as it's well known that, as a rule, the best "chess problemists" are mediocre players, and vice versa. Occasionally, you'll find someone who is strong in both areas, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Yet the simple chequered board and the characteristic moves of the pieces lend themselves in a very remarkable manner to the devising of the most entertaining puzzles. There is room for such infinite variety that the true puzzle lover cannot afford to neglect them. It was with a view to securing the interest of readers who are frightened off by the mere presentation of a chessboard that so many puzzles of this class were originally published by me in various fanciful dresses. Some of these posers I still retain in their disguised form; others I have translated into terms of the chessboard. In the majority of cases the reader will not need any knowledge whatever of chess, but I have thought it best to assume throughout that he is acquainted with the terminology, the moves, and the notation of the game.
Yet the simple checkered board and the distinctive moves of the pieces lend themselves remarkably well to creating the most entertaining puzzles. There's so much variety that a true puzzle lover can’t ignore them. To engage readers who might be intimidated by a simple chessboard, I originally published many puzzles in various imaginative formats. Some of these puzzles I still keep in their disguised forms; others I have translated into chessboard terms. In most cases, the reader won't need any knowledge of chess, but I thought it best to assume throughout that they are familiar with the terminology, moves, and notation of the game.
I first deal with a few questions affecting the chessboard itself; then with certain statical puzzles relating to the Rook, the Bishop, the Queen, and the Knight in turn; then dynamical puzzles with the pieces in the same order; and, finally, with some miscellaneous puzzles on the chessboard. It is hoped that the formulæ and tables given at the end of the statical puzzles will be of interest, as they are, for the most part, published for the first time.
I will start by addressing a few questions about the chessboard itself; then I’ll move on to specific static puzzles involving the Rook, the Bishop, the Queen, and the Knight in that order; next, I’ll cover dynamic puzzles with the pieces in the same sequence; and finally, I’ll discuss some miscellaneous puzzles on the chessboard. I hope the formulas and tables provided at the end of the static puzzles will be interesting, as they are mostly being published for the first time.
THE CHESSBOARD.
"Good company's a chessboard."
BYRON'S Don Juan, xiii. 89.
"Good company is like a chessboard."
BYRON'S Don Juan, 13.89.
A chessboard is essentially a square plane divided into sixty-four smaller squares by straight lines at right angles. Originally it was not chequered (that is, made with its rows and columns alternately black and white, or of any other two colours), and this improvement was introduced merely to help the eye in actual play. The utility of the chequers is unquestionable. For example, it facilitates the operation of the bishops, enabling us to see at the merest glance that our king or pawns on black squares are not open to attack from an opponent's bishop running on the white diagonals. Yet the chequering of the board is not essential to the game of chess. Also, when we are propounding puzzles on the chessboard, it is often well to remember that additional interest may result from "generalizing" for boards containing any number of squares, or from limiting ourselves to some particular chequered arrangement, not necessarily a square. We will give a few puzzles dealing with chequered boards in this general way.
A chessboard is basically a square surface divided into sixty-four smaller squares by straight lines at right angles. Originally, it wasn’t checkered (that is, arranged in alternating black and white or any other two colors), and this update was made simply to make it easier to see during play. The usefulness of the checkered pattern is undeniable. For instance, it helps with the movement of the bishops, allowing us to quickly see that our king or pawns on black squares are safe from an opponent's bishop moving along the white diagonals. However, the checkering of the board isn't essential to the game of chess. Additionally, when we're presenting puzzles on the chessboard, it’s often worth noting that adding variety can enhance interest by "generalizing" for boards with any number of squares or by focusing on a specific checkered arrangement, not necessarily square. We'll present a few puzzles involving checkered boards in this broader way.
I recently asked myself the question: In how many different ways may a chessboard be divided into two parts of the same size and shape by cuts along the lines dividing the squares? The problem soon proved to be both fascinating and bristling with difficulties. I present it in a simplified form, taking a board of smaller dimensions.
I recently asked myself: How many ways can you divide a chessboard into two equal parts by cutting along the lines that separate the squares? This question quickly turned out to be both intriguing and full of challenges. I’ll present it in a simpler way, using a smaller board.

It is obvious that a board of four squares can only be so divided in one way—by a straight cut down the centre—because we shall not count reversals and reflections as different. In the case of a board of sixteen squares—four by four—there are just six different ways. I have given all these in the diagram, and the reader will not find any others. Now, take the larger board of thirty-six squares, and try to discover in how many ways it may be cut into two parts of the same size and shape.
It’s clear that a board of four squares can only be divided in one way—by a straight cut down the middle—since we won’t count flips and reflections as different. For a board of sixteen squares—four by four—there are exactly six different ways. I have illustrated all of these in the diagram, and you won’t find any others. Now, take the larger board of thirty-six squares and see how many ways it can be cut into two parts of the same size and shape.
The young lady in the illustration is confronted with a little cutting-out difficulty in which the reader may be glad to assist her. She wishes, for some reason that she has not communiPg 86cated to me, to cut that square piece of valuable material into four parts, all of exactly the same size and shape, but it is important that every piece shall contain a lion and a crown. As she insists that the cuts can only be made along the lines dividing the squares, she is considerably perplexed to find out how it is to be done. Can you show her the way? There is only one possible method of cutting the stuff.
The young woman in the illustration is facing a small cutting issue that the reader might want to help her with. She wants, for some reason that she hasn't explained to me, to cut that square piece of valuable material into four equal parts, all the same size and shape, but it’s crucial that every piece includes a lion and a crown. Since she insists that the cuts can only be made along the lines dividing the squares, she’s quite confused about how to achieve this. Can you help her figure it out? There’s only one way to cut the material.

We will here consider the question of those boards that contain an odd number of squares. We will suppose that the central square is first cut out, so as to leave an even number of squares for division. Now, it is obvious that a square three by three can only be divided in one way, as shown in Fig. 1. It will be seen that the pieces A and B are of the same size and shape, and that any other way of cutting would only produce the same shaped pieces, so remember that these variations are not counted as different ways. The puzzle I propose is to cut the board five by five (Fig. 2) into two pieces of the same size and shape in as many different ways as possible. I have shown in the illustration one way of doing it. How many different ways are there altogether? A piece which when turned over resembles another piece is not considered to be of a different shape.
We are going to look at the question of boards with an odd number of squares. Let's say we cut out the central square first, leaving an even number of squares to work with. It’s clear that a three-by-three square can only be divided in one way, as shown in Fig. 1. You’ll notice that pieces A and B are the same size and shape, and any other way of cutting will only create pieces of the same shape, so keep in mind that these variations don’t count as different methods. The puzzle I’m presenting is to cut the five-by-five board (Fig. 2) into two pieces of the same size and shape in as many different ways as possible. I’ve illustrated one way to do this. How many different ways can we do it in total? A piece that looks like another piece when turned over isn’t considered to be a different shape.


Once upon a time there was a Grand Lama who had a chessboard made of pure gold, magnificently engraved, and, of course, of great value. Every year a tournament was held at Lhassa among the priests, and whenever any one beat the Grand Lama it was considered a great honour, and his name was inscribed on the back of the board, and a costly jewel set in the particular square on which the checkmate had been given. After this sovereign pontiff had been defeated on four occasions he died—possibly of chagrin.
Once upon a time, there was a Grand Lama who owned a chessboard made of pure gold, beautifully engraved, and obviously very valuable. Every year, a tournament took place in Lhasa among the priests, and whenever someone defeated the Grand Lama, it was considered a huge honor. Their name would be engraved on the back of the board, and a valuable jewel would be placed on the specific square where the checkmate occurred. After this spiritual leader was defeated four times, he passed away—possibly from disappointment.

Now the new Grand Lama was an inferior chess-player, and preferred other forms of innocent amusement, such as cutting off people's heads. So he discouraged chess as a degrading game, that did not improve either the mind or the morals, and abolished the tournament summarily. Then he sent for the four priests who had had the effrontery to play better than a Grand Lama, and addressed them as follows: Pg 87"Miserable and heathenish men, calling yourselves priests! Know ye not that to lay claim to a capacity to do anything better than my predecessor is a capital offence? Take that chessboard and, before day dawns upon the torture chamber, cut it into four equal parts of the same shape, each containing sixteen perfect squares, with one of the gems in each part! If in this you fail, then shall other sports be devised for your special delectation. Go!" The four priests succeeded in their apparently hopeless task. Can you show how the board may be divided into four equal parts, each of exactly the same shape, by cuts along the lines dividing the squares, each part to contain one of the gems?
Now the new Grand Lama was a terrible chess player and preferred other harmless activities, like beheading people. He deemed chess a degrading game that didn’t benefit the mind or morals, so he quickly canceled the tournament. Then he called for the four priests who had the audacity to play better than him and spoke to them: Pg 87 "You miserable, heathen men calling yourselves priests! Don’t you realize that claiming to be better at anything than my predecessor is a serious crime? Take that chessboard and, before dawn breaks in the torture chamber, cut it into four equal parts of the same shape, each containing sixteen perfect squares, with one gem in each part! If you fail to do this, I’ll come up with other sports for your special enjoyment. Go!" The four priests managed to complete their seemingly impossible task. Can you show how the board can be divided into four equal parts, each of the exact same shape, by cuts along the lines separating the squares, with each part containing one of the gems?
Once upon a time the Lord Abbot of St. Edmondsbury, in consequence of "devotions too strong for his head," fell sick and was unable to leave his bed. As he lay awake, tossing his head restlessly from side to side, the attentive monks noticed that something was disturbing his mind; but nobody dared ask what it might be, for the abbot was of a stern disposition, and never would brook inquisitiveness. Suddenly he called for Father John, and that venerable monk was soon at the bedside.
Once upon a time, the Lord Abbot of St. Edmondsbury, due to "devotions too strong for his head," became ill and couldn't get out of bed. As he lay awake, restlessly tossing his head from side to side, the concerned monks noticed something was bothering him; however, no one dared to ask what it was because the abbot had a serious nature and wouldn't tolerate being questioned. Suddenly, he called for Father John, and that respected monk quickly arrived at his bedside.
"Father John," said the Abbot, "dost thou know that I came into this wicked world on a Christmas Even?"
"Father John," said the Abbot, "do you know that I came into this wicked world on Christmas Eve?"
The monk nodded assent.
The monk nodded in agreement.
"And have I not often told thee that, having been born on Christmas Even, I have no love for the things that are odd? Look there!"
"And haven't I often told you that, since I was born on Christmas Eve, I have no fondness for things that are unusual? Look there!"

The Abbot pointed to the large dormitory window, of which I give a sketch. The monk looked, and was perplexed.
The Abbot pointed to the big dormitory window, which I have sketched. The monk looked at it and was confused.
"Dost thou not see that the sixty-four lights add up an even number vertically and horizontally, but that all the diagonal lines, except fourteen are of a number that is odd? Why is this?"
"Don't you see that the sixty-four lights add up to an even number both vertically and horizontally, but that all the diagonal lines, except for fourteen, are odd? Why is that?"
"Of a truth, my Lord Abbot, it is of the very nature of things, and cannot be changed."
"Honestly, my Lord Abbot, it’s just how things are, and it can’t be changed."
"Nay, but it shall be changed. I command thee that certain of the lights be closed this day, so that every line shall have an even number of lights. See thou that this be done without delay, lest the cellars be locked up for a month and other grievous troubles befall thee."
"No, it will be changed. I order you to close some of the lights today, so that every line has an even number of lights. Make sure this is done quickly, or the cellars will be locked up for a month and other serious troubles will come your way."
Father John was at his wits' end, but after consultation with one who was learned in strange mysteries, a way was found to satisfy the whim of the Lord Abbot. Which lights were blocked up, so that those which remained added up an even number in every line horizontally, vertically, and diagonally, while the least possible obstruction of light was caused?
Father John was completely frustrated, but after talking to someone who understood strange mysteries, they found a way to satisfy the request of the Lord Abbot. Some lights were blocked so that the remaining ones added up to an even number in every row, column, and diagonal, while causing the least obstruction of light possible.
Into how large a number of different pieces may the chessboard be cut (by cuts along the lines only), no two pieces being exactly alike? Remember that the arrangement of black and white constitutes a difference. Thus, a single black square will be different from a single white square, a row of three containing two white squares will differ from a row of three containing two black, and so on. If two pieces cannot be placed on the table so as to be exactly alike, they count as different. And as the back of the board is plain, the pieces cannot be turned over.
How many different pieces can the chessboard be divided into (by cuts along the lines only), with the condition that no two pieces are exactly alike? Keep in mind that the arrangement of black and white makes a difference. So, a single black square will be different from a single white square, a row of three with two white squares will be different from a row of three with two black squares, and so forth. If two pieces can’t be placed on the table so that they look exactly alike, they are considered different. And since the back of the board is plain, the pieces can’t be flipped over.

I once set myself the amusing task of so dissecting an ordinary chessboard into letters of the alphabet that they would form a complete sentence. It will be seen from the illustration that the pieces assembled give the sentence, "CUT THY LIFE," with the stops between. The ideal sentence would, of course, have only one full stop, but that I did not succeed in obtaining.
I once took on the fun challenge of breaking down a regular chessboard into letters of the alphabet to create a complete sentence. As you can see from the illustration, the pieces come together to form the sentence, "CUT THY LIFE," with punctuation included. Ideally, the sentence would only have one period, but I wasn't able to achieve that.
The sentence is an appeal to the transgressor to cut himself adrift from the evil life he is living. Can you fit these pieces together to form a perfect chessboard?
The sentence is a call for the wrongdoer to free himself from the bad life he's living. Can you arrange these pieces to create a complete chessboard?
STATICAL CHESS PUZZLES.
"They also serve who only stand and wait."
MILTON.
"They also serve who just stand and wait."
MILTON.

It will be seen in the first diagram that every square on the board is either occupied or attacked by a rook, and that every rook is "guarded" (if they were alternately black and white rooks we should say "attacked") by another rook. Placing the eight rooks on any row or file obviously will have the same effect. In diagram 2 every square is again either occupied or attacked, but in this case every rook is unguarded. Now, in how many different ways can you so place the eight rooks on the board that every square shall be occupied or attacked and no rook ever guarded by another? I do not wish to go into the question of reversals and reflections on this occasion, so that placing the rooks on the other diagonal will count as different, and similarly with other repetitions obtained by turning the board round.
It can be seen in the first diagram that every square on the board is either occupied or under attack by a rook, and that every rook is “guarded” (if they were alternating black and white rooks, we would say “attacked”) by another rook. Placing the eight rooks on any row or column will obviously have the same outcome. In diagram 2, every square is again either occupied or under attack, but in this case, every rook is unguarded. So, how many different ways can you place the eight rooks on the board so that every square is occupied or attacked and no rook is ever guarded by another? I don’t want to get into the topic of reversals and reflections this time, so putting the rooks on the other diagonal will be counted as different, as will other repetitions obtained by rotating the board.

The puzzle is to find in how many different ways the four lions may be placed so that there shall never be more than one lion in any row or column. Mere reversals and reflections will not count as different. Thus, regarding the example given, if we place the lions in the other diagonal, it will be considered the same arrangement. For if you hold the second arrangement in front of a mirror or give it a quarter turn, you merely get the first arrangement. It is a simple little puzzle, but requires a certain amount of careful consideration.
The challenge is to figure out how many different ways the four lions can be arranged so that there’s never more than one lion in any row or column. Just flipping or mirroring the arrangement doesn’t count as different. So, in the given example, if we place the lions along the opposite diagonal, it’s considered the same setup. Holding the second arrangement in front of a mirror or rotating it a quarter turn will just bring you back to the first arrangement. It’s a straightforward puzzle, but it does require some careful thought.

Place as few bishops as possible on an ordinary chessboard so that every square of the board shall be either occupied or attacked. It will be seen that the rook has more scope than the bishop: for wherever you place the former, it will always attack fourteen other squares; whereas the latter will attack seven, nine, eleven, or thirteen squares, according to the position of the diagonal on which it is placed. And it is well here to state that when we speak of "diagonals" in connection with the chessboard, we do not limit ourselves to the two long diagonals from corner to corner, but include all the shorter lines that are parallel to these. To prevent misunderstanding on future occasions, it will be well for the reader to note carefully this fact.
Place as few bishops as possible on a regular chessboard so that every square is either occupied or attacked. You'll notice that the rook has a greater range than the bishop: no matter where you put the rook, it will always be able to attack fourteen other squares, while the bishop can only attack seven, nine, eleven, or thirteen squares, depending on where it's positioned diagonally. It's important to clarify that when we mention "diagonals" in relation to the chessboard, we’re not just talking about the two long diagonals that go from corner to corner, but also all the shorter lines that run parallel to these. To avoid confusion in the future, readers should take note of this fact.
Now, how many bishops are necessary in order that every square shall be either occupied or attacked, and every bishop guarded by another bishop? And how may they be placed?
Now, how many bishops do we need so that every square is either occupied or attacked, and every bishop is protected by another bishop? And how can they be arranged?

The greatest number of bishops that can be placed at the same time on the chessboard, without any bishop attacking another, is fourteen. I show, in diagram, the simplest way of doing this. In fact, on a square chequered board of any number of squares the greatest number of bishops that can be placed without attack is always two less than twice the number of squares on the side. It is an interesting puzzle to discover in just how many different ways the fourteen bishops may be so placed without mutual attack. I shall give an exceedingly simple rule for determining the number of ways for a square chequered board of any number of squares.
The maximum number of bishops that can be placed on a chessboard at the same time, without one bishop attacking another, is fourteen. I illustrate, in a diagram, the simplest way to achieve this. In fact, on a square checkered board of any size, the highest number of bishops that can be placed without attacking each other is always two less than twice the number of squares on each side. It’s an interesting challenge to find out how many different ways the fourteen bishops can be arranged without attacking one another. I will provide a very straightforward rule for calculating the number of arrangements for a square checkered board of any size.
The queen is by far the strongest piece on the chessboard. If you place her on one of the four squares in the centre of the board, she attacks no fewer than twenty-seven other squares; and if you try to hide her in a corner, she still attacks twenty-one squares. Eight queens may be placed on the board so that no queen attacks another, and it is an old puzzle (first proposed by Nauck in 1850, and it has quite a little literature of its own) to discover in just how many different ways this may be done. I show one way in the diagram, and there are in all twelve of these fundamentally different ways. These twelve produce ninety-two ways if we regard reversals and reflections as different. The diagram is in a way a symmetrical arrangement. If you turn the page upside down, it will reproduce itself exactly; but if you look at it with one of the other sides at the bottom, you get another way that is not identical. Then if you reflect these two ways in a mirror you get two more ways. Now, all the other eleven solutions are non-symmetrical, and therefore each of them may be presented in eight ways by these reversals and reflections. It will thus be seen why the twelve fundamentally different solutions produce only ninety-two arrangements, as I have said, and not ninety-six, as would happen if all twelve were non-symmetrical. It is well to have a clear understanding on the matter of reversals and reflections when dealing with puzzles on the chessboard.
The queen is definitely the strongest piece on the chessboard. If you place her on one of the four central squares, she can attack twenty-seven other squares; even if you try to hide her in a corner, she can still attack twenty-one squares. You can place eight queens on the board in a way that none attack each other, and it's an old puzzle (first proposed by Nauck in 1850, with a fair amount of literature on it) to figure out how many different ways this can be accomplished. I demonstrate one way in the diagram, and there are a total of twelve fundamentally different configurations. These twelve create ninety-two arrangements if we count reversals and reflections as distinct. The diagram is a symmetrical arrangement; if you flip the page upside down, it looks exactly the same, but if you view it from one of the other sides at the bottom, you get a new configuration that's not identical. Then, if you mirror these two configurations, you get two more. The other eleven solutions are non-symmetrical, meaning each of them can also be represented in eight ways through these reversals and reflections. This is why the twelve fundamentally different solutions lead to only ninety-two arrangements, as I mentioned, instead of ninety-six, which would be the case if all twelve were non-symmetrical. It's important to have a clear understanding of reversals and reflections when dealing with chessboard puzzles.

Can the reader place the eight queens on the board so that no queen shall attack another and so that no three queens shall be in a straight line in any oblique direction? Another glance at the diagram will show that this arrangement will not answer the conditions, for in the two directions indicated by the dotted lines there are three queens in a straight line. There is only one of the twelve fundamental ways that will solve the puzzle. Can you find it?
Can you position the eight queens on the board so that none of them can attack each other and no three queens are in a straight line in any diagonal direction? Looking at the diagram again shows that this setup doesn't work, because in the two directions marked by the dotted lines, there are three queens lined up. There's only one of the twelve basic solutions that will solve the puzzle. Can you find it?

The puzzle in this case is to place eight stars in the diagram so that no star shall be in line with another star horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. One star is already placed, and that must not be moved, so there are only seven for the reader now to place. But you must not place a star on any one of the shaded squares. There is only one way of solving this little puzzle.
The challenge here is to arrange eight stars in the diagram so that no star lines up with another star horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. One star is already positioned, and it can’t be moved, leaving just seven for you to place. However, you can't place a star on any of the shaded squares. There’s only one solution to this puzzle.
The art of producing pictures or designs by means of joining together pieces of hard substances, either naturally or artificially coloured, is of very great antiquity. It was certainly known in the time of the Pharaohs, and we find a reference in the Book of Esther to "a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble." Some of this ancient work that has come down to us, especially some of the Roman mosaics, would seem to show clearly, even where design is not at first evident, that much thought was bestowed upon apparently disorderly arrangements. Where, for example, the work has been produced with a very limited number of colours, there are evidences of great ingenuity in preventing the same tints coming in close proximity. Lady readers who are familiar with the construction of patchwork quilts will know how desirable it is sometimes, when they are limited in the choice of material, to prevent pieces of the same stuff coming too near together. Now, this puzzle will apply equally to patchwork quilts or tesselated pavements.
The art of creating images or designs by joining together pieces of hard materials, whether naturally or artificially colored, is very ancient. It was definitely known during the time of the Pharaohs, and there’s a mention in the Book of Esther of "a pavement of red, blue, white, and black marble." Some of the ancient works that we still have, especially certain Roman mosaics, clearly indicate, even when the design isn’t immediately obvious, that a lot of thought went into seemingly random arrangements. For instance, in works made with a limited palette of colors, there are signs of great creativity in keeping the same shades from being too close together. Female readers who are familiar with making patchwork quilts will understand how important it is, when using a limited selection of fabrics, to avoid placing pieces of the same material too near one another. This challenge applies equally to patchwork quilts and tiled pavements.
It will be seen from the diagram how a square piece of flooring may be paved with sixty-two square tiles of the eight colours violet, red, yellow, green, orange, purple, white, and blue (indicated by the initial letters), so that no tile is in line with a similarly coloured tile, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Sixty-four such tiles could not possibly be placed under these conditions, but the two shaded squares happen to be occupied by iron ventilators.
It will be clear from the diagram how a square section of flooring can be covered with sixty-two square tiles in eight colors: violet, red, yellow, green, orange, purple, white, and blue (shown by the initial letters), ensuring that no tile lines up with a tile of the same color, whether vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Sixty-four tiles can't be arranged this way, but the two shaded squares are taken up by iron vents.

The puzzle is this. These two ventilators have to be removed to the positions indicated by the darkly bordered tiles, and two tiles placed in those bottom corner squares. Can you readjust the thirty-two tiles so that no two of the same colour shall still be in line?
The challenge is this. These two ventilators need to be moved to the spots marked by the dark-bordered tiles, and two tiles should be placed in those bottom corner squares. Can you rearrange the thirty-two tiles so that no two tiles of the same color are still in a straight line?

If the reader will examine the above diagram, he will see that I have so placed eight V's, eight E's, eight I's, and eight L's in the diagram that no letter is in line with a similar one horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. Thus, no V is in line with another V, no E with another E, and so on. There are a great many different ways of arranging the letters under this condition. The puzzle is to find an arrangement that produces the greatest possible number of four-letter words, reading upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards, or diagonally. All repetitions count as different words, and the five variations that may be used are: VEIL, VILE, LEVI, LIVE, and EVIL.
If you look at the diagram above, you'll see that I've arranged eight V's, eight E's, eight I's, and eight L's so that no letter aligns with another of the same kind horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. This means no V is lined up with another V, no E with another E, and so on. There are many different ways to arrange the letters under this rule. The challenge is to find an arrangement that creates the maximum number of four-letter words, reading up and down, backward and forward, or diagonally. All repetitions count as different words, and the five variations you can use are: VEIL, VILE, LEVI, LIVE, and EVIL.
This will be made perfectly clear when I say that the above arrangement scores eight, because the top and bottom row both give VEIL; the second and seventh columns both give VEIL; and the two diagonals, starting from the L in the 5th row and E in the 8th row, both give LIVE and EVIL. There are therefore eight different readings of the words in all.
This will be made perfectly clear when I say that the arrangement above scores eight, because the top and bottom rows both spell VEIL; the second and seventh columns both spell VEIL; and the two diagonals, starting from the L in the 5th row and E in the 8th row, both spell LIVE and EVIL. There are therefore eight different readings of the words in total.
This difficult word puzzle is given as an example of the use of chessboard analysis in solving such things. Only a person who is familiar with the "Eight Queens" problem could hope to solve it.
This challenging word puzzle is provided as an example of using chessboard analysis to tackle problems like this. Only someone familiar with the "Eight Queens" problem would stand a chance of solving it.
One of the oldest card puzzles is by Claude Caspar Bachet de Méziriac, first published, I believe, in the 1624 edition of his work. Rearrange the sixteen court cards (including the aces) in a square so that in no row of four cards, horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, shall be found two cards of the same suit or the same value. This in itself is easy enough, but a point of the puzzle is to find in how many different ways this may be done. The eminent French mathematician A. Labosne, in his modern edition of Bachet, gives the answer incorrectly. And yet the puzzle is really quite easy. Any arrangement produces seven more by turning the square round and reflecting it in a mirror. These are counted as different by Bachet.
One of the oldest card puzzles is by Claude Caspar Bachet de Méziriac, first published, I believe, in the 1624 edition of his work. Rearrange the sixteen court cards (including the aces) in a square so that no row of four cards—horizontal, vertical, or diagonal—contains two cards of the same suit or value. This part is pretty straightforward, but the challenge is figuring out how many different ways this can be done. The well-known French mathematician A. Labosne, in his modern edition of Bachet, gives the wrong answer. Still, the puzzle is actually quite simple. Any arrangement creates seven more by rotating the square and reflecting it in a mirror. Bachet counts these as different arrangements.

The illustration represents a box containing thirty-six letter-blocks. The puzzle is to rearrange these blocks so that no A shall be in a line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally with another A, no B with another B, no C with another C, and so on. You will find it impossible to get all the letters into the box under these conditions, but the point is to place as many as possible. Of course no letters other than those shown may be used.
The illustration shows a box with thirty-six letter blocks. The challenge is to rearrange these blocks so that no A is in a line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally with another A, no B is with another B, no C is with another C, and so on. You'll find it impossible to fit all the letters into the box under these conditions, but the goal is to place as many as you can. Of course, no letters other than the ones shown may be used.

The puzzle is to rearrange the fifty-one pieces on the chessboard so that no queen shall attack another queen, no rook attack another rook, no bishop attack another bishop, and no knight attack another knight. No notice is to be taken of the intervention of pieces of another type from that under consideration—that is, two queens will be considered to attack one another although there may be, say, a rook, a bishop, and a knight between them. And so with the rooks and bishops. It is not difficult to dispose of each type of piece separately; the difficulty comes in when you have to find room for all the arrangements on the board simultaneously.
The challenge is to rearrange the fifty-one pieces on the chessboard so that no queen can attack another queen, no rook can attack another rook, no bishop can attack another bishop, and no knight can attack another knight. We ignore the presence of different types of pieces in this situation—that is, two queens will be seen as attacking each other even if there's a rook, a bishop, and a knight between them. The same goes for the rooks and bishops. It's not hard to place each type of piece on its own; the real challenge is finding room for all the arrangements on the board at the same time.

The diagram represents twenty-five coloured counters, Red, Blue, Yellow, Orange, and Green (indicated by their initials), and there are five of each colour, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The problem is so to place them in a square that neither colour nor number shall be found repeated in any one of the five rows, five columns, and two diagonals. Can you so rearrange them?
The diagram shows twenty-five colored counters: Red, Blue, Yellow, Orange, and Green (identified by their initials). There are five of each color, numbered 1 through 5. The challenge is to arrange them in a square so that no color or number repeats in any of the five rows, five columns, and two diagonals. Can you rearrange them?
The Insurance Act is a most prolific source of entertaining puzzles, particularly entertaining if you happen to be among the exempt. One's initiation into the gentle art of stamp-licking suggests the following little poser: If you have a card divided into sixteen spaces (4 × 4), and are provided with plenty of stamps of the values 1d., 2d., 3d., 4d., and 5d., what is the greatest value that you can stick on the card if the Chancellor of the Exchequer forbids you to place any stamp in a straight line (that is, horizontally, vertically, or diagonally) with another stamp of similar value? Of course, only one stamp can be affixed in a space. The reader will probably find, when he sees the solution, that, like the stamps themselves, he is licked Pg 92He will most likely be twopence short of the maximum. A friend asked the Post Office how it was to be done; but they sent him to the Customs and Excise officer, who sent him to the Insurance Commissioners, who sent him to an approved society, who profanely sent him—but no matter.
The Insurance Act is a huge source of entertaining puzzles, especially fun if you're one of the exempt. When you start getting into the enjoyable process of stamp-licking, consider this little brain teaser: If you have a card with sixteen squares (4 × 4), and you've got plenty of stamps worth 1d., 2d., 3d., 4d., and 5d., what’s the highest total value you can place on the card if the Chancellor of the Exchequer prohibits you from putting any stamp in a straight line (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally) with another stamp of the same value? Of course, you can only put one stamp in each square. The reader will likely find, once they see the solution, that they are, like the stamps themselves, out of luck Pg 92. They will probably be two pence short of the maximum. A friend asked the Post Office how to figure it out, but they directed him to the Customs and Excise officer, who sent him to the Insurance Commissioners, who sent him to an approved society, who rudely sent him somewhere else—but that’s beside the point.

Can you rearrange the above forty-nine counters in a square so that no letter, and also no number, shall be in line with a similar one, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally? Here I, of course, mean in the lines parallel with the diagonals, in the chessboard sense.
Can you rearrange the forty-nine counters above into a square so that no letter or number is in line with another identical one, whether vertically, horizontally, or diagonally? I mean in the lines that are parallel to the diagonals, like in a chessboard.

A farmer had three sheep and an arrangement of sixteen pens, divided off by hurdles in the manner indicated in the illustration. In how many different ways could he place those sheep, each in a separate pen, so that every pen should be either occupied or in line (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally) with at least one sheep? I have given one arrangement that fulfils the conditions. How many others can you find? Mere reversals and reflections must not be counted as different. The reader may regard the sheep as queens. The problem is then to place the three queens so that every square shall be either occupied or attacked by at least one queen—in the maximum number of different ways.
A farmer had three sheep and a setup of sixteen pens, separated by hurdles as shown in the illustration. In how many different ways could he place those sheep, each in its own pen, so that every pen is either occupied or aligned (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally) with at least one sheep? I've provided one arrangement that meets the criteria. How many others can you come up with? Simply reversing or flipping arrangements shouldn't count as different. You can think of the sheep as queens. The challenge is to position the three queens so that every square is either occupied or attacked by at least one queen—in as many different ways as possible.
In 1863, C.F. de Jaenisch first discussed the "Five Queens Puzzle"—to place five queens on the chessboard so that every square shall be attacked or occupied—which was propounded by his friend, a "Mr. de R." Jaenisch showed that if no queen may attack another there are ninety-one different ways of placing the five queens, reversals and reflections not counting as different. If the queens may attack one another, I have recorded hundreds of ways, but it is not practicable to enumerate them exactly.
In 1863, C.F. de Jaenisch was the first to talk about the "Five Queens Puzzle"—placing five queens on a chessboard so that every square is either attacked or occupied—which his friend, a "Mr. de R.," suggested. Jaenisch demonstrated that if no queen can attack another, there are ninety-one unique ways to arrange the five queens, not counting reversals and reflections as different. If the queens can attack each other, I've noted hundreds of arrangements, but it's not practical to list them all precisely.

The illustration is supposed to represent an arrangement of sixty-four kennels. It will be seen that five kennels each contain a dog, and on further examination it will be seen that every one of the sixty-four kennels is in a straight line with at least one dog—either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. Take any kennel you like, and you will find that you can draw a straight line to a dog in one or other of the three ways mentioned. The puzzle is to replace the five dogs and discover in just how many different ways they may be placed in five kennels in a straight row, so that every kennel shall always be in line with at least one dog. Reversals and reflections are here counted as different.
The illustration shows an arrangement of sixty-four kennels. You’ll notice that five kennels each have a dog, and if you look closer, you'll see that every one of the sixty-four kennels is in a straight line with at least one dog—either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. Pick any kennel you want, and you'll find that you can draw a straight line to a dog in one of those three ways. The challenge is to replace the five dogs and find out how many different ways they can be placed in five kennels in a straight row, so that every kennel is always lined up with at least one dog. Reversals and reflections count as different.
When Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, found himself confronted with great difficulties in the siege of Byzantium, he Pg 93set his men to undermine the walls. His desires, however, miscarried, for no sooner had the operations been begun than a crescent moon suddenly appeared in the heavens and discovered his plans to his adversaries. The Byzantines were naturally elated, and in order to show their gratitude they erected a statue to Diana, and the crescent became thenceforward a symbol of the state. In the temple that contained the statue was a square pavement composed of sixty-four large and costly tiles. These were all plain, with the exception of five, which bore the symbol of the crescent. These five were for occult reasons so placed that every tile should be watched over by (that is, in a straight line, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally with) at least one of the crescents. The arrangement adopted by the Byzantine architect was as follows:—
When Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, faced major challenges during the siege of Byzantium, he Pg 93ordered his men to dig under the walls. However, his plans quickly fell apart, as a crescent moon suddenly appeared in the sky and revealed his strategy to his enemies. The Byzantines were understandably pleased, and to show their appreciation, they built a statue of Diana. From that point on, the crescent became a state symbol. In the temple housing the statue, there was a square pavement made up of sixty-four large, expensive tiles. All of them were plain, except for five, which featured the crescent symbol. These five tiles were strategically placed for hidden reasons so that every tile would be monitored by at least one crescent, whether in a straight line, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. The arrangement created by the Byzantine architect was as follows:—

Now, to cover up one of these five crescents was a capital offence, the death being something very painful and lingering. But on a certain occasion of festivity it was necessary to lay down on this pavement a square carpet of the largest dimensions possible, and I have shown in the illustration by dark shading the largest dimensions that would be available.
Now, covering one of these five crescents was a serious crime, and the punishment was something quite painful and prolonged. However, during a particular celebration, it was necessary to place a large square carpet on this pavement, and I've indicated in the illustration with dark shading the largest size that could fit.
The puzzle is to show how the architect, if he had foreseen this question of the carpet, might have so arranged his five crescent tiles in accordance with the required conditions, and yet have allowed for the largest possible square carpet to be laid down without any one of the five crescent tiles being covered, or any portion of them.
The challenge is to demonstrate how the architect, if he had anticipated the issue with the carpet, could have arranged his five crescent tiles to meet the necessary conditions while also allowing for the largest possible square carpet to be placed down without covering any of the five crescent tiles or any part of them.
It will be seen that every square of the board is either occupied or attacked. The puzzle is to substitute a bishop for the rook on the same square, and then place the four queens on other squares so that every square shall again be either occupied or attacked.
It’s clear that every square on the board is either taken or under attack. The challenge is to replace the rook with a bishop on the same square, then place the four queens on different squares so that every square is again either taken or under attack.


In the above illustration we have five Planets and eighty-one Fixed Stars, five of the latter being hidden by the Planets. It will be found that every Star, with the exception of the ten that have a black spot in their centres, is in a straight line, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, with at least one of the Planets. The puzzle is so to rearrange the Planets that all the Stars shall be in line with one or more of them.
In the illustration above, we see five Planets and eighty-one Fixed Stars, with five of those Stars obscured by the Planets. You’ll notice that every Star, except for the ten that have a black spot in their centers, lines up vertically, horizontally, or diagonally with at least one of the Planets. The challenge is to rearrange the Planets so that all the Stars align with one or more of them.
In rearranging the Planets, each of the five may be moved once in a straight line, in either of the three directions mentioned. They will, of course, obscure five other Stars in place of those at present covered.
In rearranging the Planets, each of the five can be moved once in a straight line, in any of the three directions mentioned. They will, of course, cover five different Stars instead of those currently obscured.
Here is a five-queen puzzle that I gave in a fanciful dress in 1897. As the queens were Pg 94there represented as hats on sixty-four pegs, I will keep to the title, "The Hat-Peg Puzzle." It will be seen that every square is occupied or attacked. The puzzle is to remove one queen
Here is a five-queen puzzle that I presented dressed up in a playful way in 1897. Since the queens were Pg 94represented as hats on sixty-four pegs, I will stick with the title, "The Hat-Peg Puzzle." You’ll notice that every square is either occupied or under threat. The challenge is to remove one queen.

to a different square so that still every square is occupied or attacked, then move a second queen under a similar condition, then a third queen, and finally a fourth queen. After the fourth move every square must be attacked or occupied, but no queen must then attack another. Of course, the moves need not be "queen moves;" you can move a queen to any part of the board.
to a different square so that every square is still occupied or attacked, then move a second queen under similar conditions, then a third queen, and finally a fourth queen. After the fourth move, every square must be attacked or occupied, but no queen should attack another. Of course, the moves don’t have to be “queen moves”; you can move a queen to any part of the board.

This puzzle is based on one by Captain Turton. Remove three of the queens to other squares so that there shall be eleven squares on the board that are not attacked. The removal of the three queens need not be by "queen moves." You may take them up and place them anywhere. There is only one solution.
This puzzle is inspired by one from Captain Turton. Move three of the queens to different squares so that there are eleven squares on the board that aren’t attacked. The movement of the three queens doesn’t have to be in "queen moves." You can lift them and put them anywhere. There is only one solution.
Place two pawns in the middle of the chessboard, one at Q 4 and the other at K 5. Now, place the remaining fourteen pawns (sixteen in all) so that no three shall be in a straight line in any possible direction.
Place two pawns in the center of the chessboard, one at Q4 and the other at K5. Now, place the remaining fourteen pawns (sixteen total) in a way that prevents any three from being in a straight line in any direction.
Note that I purposely do not say queens, because by the words "any possible direction" I go beyond attacks on diagonals. The pawns must be regarded as mere points in space—at the centres of the squares. See dotted lines in the case of No. 300, "The Eight Queens."
Note that I intentionally don't say queens, because by the phrase "any possible direction" I mean more than just diagonal attacks. The pawns should be seen as just points in space—at the center of their squares. Refer to the dotted lines in the case of No. 300, "The Eight Queens."

My friend Captain Potham Hall, the renowned hunter of big game, says there is nothing more exhilarating than a brush with a herd—a pack—a team—a flock—a swarm (it has taken me a full quarter of an hour to recall the right word, but I have it at last)—a pride of lions. Why a number of lions are called a "pride," a number of whales a "school," and a number of foxes a "skulk" are mysteries of philology into which I will not enter.
My friend Captain Potham Hall, the famous big game hunter, says there’s nothing more exciting than coming across a pride—a pack—a team—a flock—a swarm (it took me a good fifteen minutes to think of the right word, but I’ve got it now)—a pride of lions. Why a group of lions is called a "pride," a group of whales a "school," and a group of foxes a "skulk" are mysteries of language that I won’t explore.
Well, the captain says that if a spirited lion crosses your path in the desert it becomes lively, for the lion has generally been looking for the man just as much as the man has sought the king of the forest. And yet when they meet they always quarrel and fight it out. A little contemplation of this unfortunate and long-standing feud between two estimable families has led me to figure out a few calculations as to the probability of the man and the lion crossing one another's path in the jungle. In all these cases one has to start on certain more Pg 95or less arbitrary assumptions. That is why in the above illustration I have thought it necessary to represent the paths in the desert with such rigid regularity. Though the captain assures me that the tracks of the lions usually run much in this way, I have doubts.
Well, the captain says that if a spirited lion crosses your path in the desert, it becomes lively, because the lion has generally been looking for the man just as much as the man has been looking for the king of the forest. Yet when they meet, they always end up in a quarrel and fight it out. A little reflection on this unfortunate and long-standing feud between two noble families has led me to come up with some calculations about the chances of a man and a lion crossing each other's paths in the jungle. In all these cases, you have to start with some somewhat arbitrary assumptions. That's why in the illustration above, I felt the need to represent the paths in the desert with such strict regularity. Although the captain assures me that lion tracks usually run like this, I have my doubts.
The puzzle is simply to find out in how many different ways the man and the lion may be placed on two different spots that are not on the same path. By "paths" it must be understood that I only refer to the ruled lines. Thus, with the exception of the four corner spots, each combatant is always on two paths and no more. It will be seen that there is a lot of scope for evading one another in the desert, which is just what one has always understood.
The challenge is to determine how many different ways the man and the lion can be positioned on two separate spots that are not on the same path. When I say "paths," I'm specifically talking about the ruled lines. So, except for the four corner spots, each fighter is always on two paths and not more. You'll notice that there's plenty of room to avoid each other in the desert, which is exactly what has always been understood.

The knight is the irresponsible low comedian of the chessboard. "He is a very uncertain, sneaking, and demoralizing rascal," says an American writer. "He can only move two squares, but makes up in the quality of his locomotion for its quantity, for he can spring one square sideways and one forward simultaneously, like a cat; can stand on one leg in the middle of the board and jump to any one of eight squares he chooses; can get on one side of a fence and blackguard three or four men on the other; has an objectionable way of inserting himself in safe places where he can scare the king and compel him to move, and then gobble a queen. For pure cussedness the knight has no equal, and when you chase him out of one hole he skips into another." Attempts have been made over and over again to obtain a short, simple, and exact definition of the move of the knight—without success. It really consists in moving one square like a rook, and then another square like a bishop—the two operations being done in one leap, so that it does not matter whether the first square passed over is occupied by another piece or not. It is, in fact, the only leaping move in chess. But difficult as it is to define, a child can learn it by inspection in a few minutes.
The knight is the unpredictable jokester of the chessboard. "He is a very unreliable, sneaky, and frustrating character," says an American writer. "He can only move two squares, but makes up for it with the uniqueness of his movement since he can jump one square sideways and one forward at the same time, like a cat; can balance on one leg in the middle of the board and jump to any one of eight squares he wants; can get on one side of a barrier and insult three or four pieces on the other; has a knack for inserting himself into safe spots where he can threaten the king and force him to move, and then capture a queen. For sheer annoyance, the knight has no rival, and when you chase him out of one corner, he hops into another." People have tried time and again to come up with a short, simple, and precise definition of how the knight moves—without success. It really involves moving one square like a rook, and then another square like a bishop—the two actions happening in one leap, meaning it doesn't matter if the first square crossed is occupied by another piece or not. It is, in fact, the only jumping move in chess. But as difficult as it is to describe, a child can figure it out by watching in just a few minutes.
I have shown in the diagram how twelve knights (the fewest possible that will perform the feat) may be placed on the chessboard so that every square is either occupied or attacked by a knight. Examine every square in turn, and you will find that this is so. Now, the puzzle in this case is to discover what is the smallest possible number of knights that is required in order that every square shall be either occupied or attacked, and every knight protected by another knight. And how would you arrange them? It will be found that of the twelve shown in the diagram only four are thus protected by being a knight's move from another knight.
I’ve illustrated in the diagram how twelve knights (the minimum needed to complete the task) can be positioned on the chessboard so that every square is either occupied or threatened by a knight. Check each square one by one, and you’ll see this is true. The challenge here is to figure out the smallest number of knights required to ensure that every square is either occupied or threatened, and that each knight is protected by another knight. How would you set them up? You’ll notice that out of the twelve shown in the diagram, only four are protected by being a knight's move away from another knight.
THE GUARDED CHESSBOARD.
On an ordinary chessboard, 8 by 8, every square can be guarded—that is, either occupied or attacked—by 5 queens, the fewest possible. There are exactly 91 fundamentally different arrangements in which no queen attacks another queen. If every queen must attack (or be protected by) another queen, there are at fewest 41 arrangements, and I have recorded some 150 ways in which some of the queens are attacked and some not, but this last case is very difficult to enumerate exactly.
On a standard 8 by 8 chessboard, every square can be defended—that is, either occupied or attacked—by just 5 queens, which is the minimum needed. There are exactly 91 fundamentally different setups where no queen attacks another. If each queen has to attack (or be protected by) another queen, there are at least 41 configurations, and I've documented around 150 ways where some of the queens are attacking while others are not, but this last scenario is really challenging to count accurately.
On an ordinary chessboard every square can be guarded by 8 rooks (the fewest possible) in 40,320 ways, if no rook may attack another rook, but it is not known how many of these are fundamentally different. (See solution to No. 295, "The Eight Rooks.") I have not enumerated the ways in which every rook shall be protected by another rook.
On a regular chessboard, each square can be defended by 8 rooks (the minimum possible) in 40,320 different ways, assuming no rook can attack another rook. However, it's unclear how many of these arrangements are truly unique. (See solution to No. 295, "The Eight Rooks.") I haven’t counted the ways in which each rook is protected by another rook.
On an ordinary chessboard every square can be guarded by 8 bishops (the fewest possible), if no bishop may attack another bishop. Ten bishops are necessary if every bishop is to be protected. (See Nos. 297 and 298, "Bishops unguarded" and "Bishops guarded.")
On a regular chessboard, every square can be covered by 8 bishops (the minimum possible), as long as no bishop can attack another. To ensure every bishop is protected, 10 bishops are needed. (See Nos. 297 and 298, "Bishops unguarded" and "Bishops guarded.")
On an ordinary chessboard every square can be guarded by 12 knights if all but 4 are unprotected. But if every knight must be protected, 14 are necessary. (See No. 319, "The Knight-Guards.")
On a regular chessboard, every square can be defended by 12 knights if only 4 are left unprotected. However, if every knight needs to be protected, you need 14 in total. (See No. 319, "The Knight-Guards.")
Dealing with the queen on n2 boards generally, where n is less than 8, the following results will be of interest:—
Dealing with the queen on n2 boards in general, where n is less than 8, the following results will be of interest:—
1 queen guards 22 board in 1 fundamental way.
1 queen guards 42 board in 1 fundamental way.
1 queen guards 32 board in 1 fundamental way.
1 queen controls 32 squares on the board in 1 essential way.
2 queens guard 42 board in 3 fundamental ways (protected).
2 queens guard 42 board in 3 basic ways (protected).
3 queens guard 42 board in 2 fundamental ways (not protected).
3 queens guard 42 board in 2 basic ways (not protected).
3 queens guard 52 board in 37 fundamental ways (protected).
3 queens guard 252 board in 37 basic ways (protected).
3 queens guard 52 board in 2 fundamental ways (not protected).
3 queens guard 52 board in 2 main ways (not protected).
3 queens guard 62 board in 1 fundamental way (protected).
3 queens guard 62 board in 1 basic way (protected).
4 queens guard 62 board in 17 fundamental ways (not protected).
4 queens guard 62 board in 17 basic ways (not defended).
4 queens guard 72 board in 5 fundamental ways (protected).
4 queens guard 72 board in 5 essential ways (protected).
4 queens guard 72 board in 1 fundamental way (not protected).
4 queens guard 72 board in 1 basic way (not protected).
NON-ATTACKING CHESSBOARD ARRANGEMENTS.
We know that n queens may always be placed on a square board of n2 squares (if n be greater than 3) without any queen attacking another queen. But no general formula for enumerating the number of different ways in which it may be done has yet been discovered; probably it is undiscoverable. The known results are as follows:—
We know that n queens can always be placed on a square board of n2 squares (if n is greater than 3) without any queen attacking another queen. However, no general formula for counting the different ways to arrange them has been found; it’s likely that such a formula doesn't exist. The known results are as follows:—
Where n = 4 there is 1 fundamental solution and 2 in all.
Where n = 4, there is 1 basic solution and a total of 2.
Where n = 5 there are 2 fundamental solutions and 10 in all.
Where n = 5, there are 2 basic solutions and a total of 10.
Where n = 6 there is 1 fundamental solution and 4 in all.
Where n = 6, there is 1 basic solution and a total of 4.
Where n = 7 there are 6 fundamental solutions and 40 in all.
Where n = 7, there are 6 basic solutions and 40 total.
Where n = 8 there are 12 fundamental solutions and 92 in all.
Where n = 8, there are 12 basic solutions and 92 overall.
Where n = 9 there are 46 fundamental solutions.
Where n = 9, there are 46 basic solutions.
Where n = 10 there are 92 fundamental solutions.
Where n = 10, there are 92 basic solutions.
Where n = 11 there are 341 fundamental solutions.
Where n = 11, there are 341 basic solutions.
Obviously n rooks may be placed without attack on an n2 board in n! ways, but how many of these are fundamentally different I have only worked out in the four cases where n equals 2, 3, 4, and 5. The answers here are respectively 1, 2, 7, and 23. (See No. 296, "The Four Lions.")
Obviously, n rooks can be placed without attacking each other on an n2 board in n! ways, but I’ve only figured out how many of these arrangements are fundamentally different in the four cases where n is 2, 3, 4, and 5. The answers for these cases are 1, 2, 7, and 23, respectively. (See No. 296, "The Four Lions.")
We can place 2n-2 bishops on an n2 board in 2n ways. (See No. 299, "Bishops in Convocation.") For boards containing 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 squares, on a side there are respectively 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, 36 fundamentally different arrangements. Where n is odd there are 2½(n-1) such arrangements, each giving 4 by reversals and reflections, and 2n-3 - 2½(n-3) giving 8. Where n is even there are 2½(n-2), each giving 4 by reversals and reflections, and 2n-3 - 2½(n-4), each giving 8.
We can place 2n-2 bishops on an n2 board in 2n ways. (See No. 299, "Bishops in Convocation.") For boards with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 squares on each side, there are 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, and 36 fundamentally different arrangements, respectively. When n is odd, there are 2½(n-1) arrangements, each providing 4 through reversals and reflections, and 2n-3 - 2½(n-3) providing 8. When n is even, there are 2½(n-2), each providing 4 through reversals and reflections, and 2n-3 - 2½(n-4), each providing 8.
We can place ½(n2+1) knights on an n2 board without attack, when n is odd, in 1 fundamental way; and ½n2 knights on an n2 board, when n is even, in 1 fundamental way. In the first case we place all the knights on the same colour as the central square; in the second case we place them all on black, or all on white, squares.
We can place ½(n2+1) knights on an n2 board without them attacking each other when n is odd, in one main way; and we can place ½n2 knights on an n2 board when n is even, also in one main way. In the first case, we put all the knights on the same color as the center square; in the second case, we put them all on either black or white squares.
THE TWO PIECES PROBLEM.
On a board of n2 squares, two queens, two rooks, two bishops, or two knights can always be placed, irrespective of attack or not, in ½(n4 - n2) ways. The following formulæ will show in how many of these ways the two pieces may be placed with attack and without:—
On a board of n2 squares, you can always place two queens, two rooks, two bishops, or two knights in ½(n4 - n2) different ways, regardless of whether they threaten each other or not. The following formulas will demonstrate how many of these placements result in threats and which do not:—
With Attack. | Without Attack. | |
2 Queens | 5n3 - 6n2 + n | 3n4 - 10n3 + 9n2 - 2n |
3 | 6 | |
2 Rooks | n3 - n2 | n4 - 2n3 + n2 |
2 | ||
2 Bishops | 4n3 - 6n2 + 2n | 3n4 - 4n3 + 3n2 - 2n |
6 | 6 | |
2 Knights | 4n2 - 12n + 8 | n4 - 9n2 + 24n |
2 |
(See No. 318, "Lion Hunting.")
(See No. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, "__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.")
DYNAMICAL CHESS PUZZLES.
"Push on—keep moving."
THOS. MORTON: Cure for the Heartache.
"Keep going—don’t stop."
THOS. MORTON: Cure for Heartbreak.

The puzzle is to move the single rook over the whole board, so that it shall visit every square of the board once, and only once, and end its tour on the square from which it starts. You have to do this in as few moves as possible, and unless you are very careful you will take just one move too many. Of course, a square is regarded equally as "visited" whether you merely pass over it or make it a stopping-place, and we will not quibble over the point whether the original square is actually visited twice. We will assume that it is not.
The challenge is to move the single rook across the entire board, visiting every square only once and finishing its journey on the square where it started. You need to accomplish this in the fewest possible moves, and if you're not careful, you might end up taking one extra move. Naturally, a square is considered "visited" whether you simply pass over it or stop on it, and we won’t debate whether the starting square is counted as visited twice. We'll assume it isn’t.
This puzzle I call "The Rook's Journey," because the word "tour" (derived from a turner's wheel) implies that we return to the point from which we set out, and we do not do this in the present case. We should not be satisfied with Pg 97a personally conducted holiday tour that ended by leaving us, say, in the middle of the Sahara. The rook here makes twenty-one moves, in the course of which journey it visits every square of the board once and only once, stopping at the square marked 10 at the end of its tenth move, and ending at the square marked 21. Two consecutive moves cannot be made in the same direction—that is to say, you must make a turn after every move.
This puzzle is called "The Rook's Journey" because the word "tour" (which comes from a turner's wheel) suggests returning to where we started, and that's not what happens here. We shouldn't settle for a guided holiday tour that leaves us stranded, for instance, in the middle of the Sahara. The rook makes twenty-one moves during this journey, visiting each square on the board exactly once, stopping at the square labeled 10 after its tenth move, and finishing at the square labeled 21. No two consecutive moves can be in the same direction—that is, you have to change direction after every move.


A wicked baron in the good old days imprisoned an innocent maiden in one of the deepest dungeons beneath the castle moat. It will be seen from our illustration that there were sixty-three cells in the dungeon, all connected by open doors, and the maiden was chained in the cell in which she is shown. Now, a valiant knight, who loved the damsel, succeeded in rescuing her from the enemy. Having gained an entrance to the dungeon at the point where he is seen, he succeeded in reaching the maiden after entering every cell once and only once. Take your pencil and try to trace out such a route. When you have succeeded, then try to discover a route in twenty-two straight paths through the cells. It can be done in this number without entering any cell a second time.
A cruel baron in the good old days locked up an innocent maiden in one of the deepest dungeons under the castle moat. As shown in our illustration, there were sixty-three cells in the dungeon, all connected by open doors, and the maiden was chained in the cell where she's depicted. A brave knight, who loved the girl, managed to rescue her from the villain. After getting into the dungeon at the spot where he's shown, he was able to reach the maiden by going through every cell once and only once. Grab a pencil and try to trace out such a route. Once you succeed, see if you can find a way through the cells using just twenty-two straight paths. It can be done within that number without entering any cell a second time.

A French prisoner, for his sins (or other people's), was confined in an underground dungeon containing sixty-four cells, all communicating with open doorways, as shown in our illustration. In order to reduce the tedium of his restricted life, he set himself various puzzles, and this is one of them. Starting from the cell in which he is shown, how could he visit every cell once, and only once, and make as many turnings as possible? His first attempt is shown by the dotted track. It will be found that there are as many as fifty-five straight lines in his path, but after many attempts he improved upon this. Can you get more than fifty-five? You may end your path in any cell you like. Try the puzzle with a pencil on chessboard diagrams, or you may regard them as rooks' moves on a board.
A French prisoner, for his mistakes (or those of others), was locked up in an underground dungeon with sixty-four cells, all connected by open doorways, as shown in our illustration. To break the monotony of his confined life, he challenged himself with various puzzles, and this is one of them. Starting from the cell he’s in, how can he visit every cell once, and only once, while making as many turns as possible? His first attempt is shown by the dotted line. He found that there are as many as fifty-five straight lines in his path, but after several tries, he got better at it. Can you beat fifty-five? You can end your path in any cell you want. Try solving the puzzle with a pencil on chessboard diagrams, or think of them as rook moves on a board.
In a public place in Rome there once stood a prison divided into sixty-four cells, all open to the sky and all communicating with one another, as shown in the illustration. The sports that here took place were watched from a high tower. The favourite game was to place a Christian in one corner cell and a lion in the diagonally opposite corner and then leave them with all the inner doors open. The consequent effect was sometimes most laughable. On one occasion the man was given a sword. He was Pg 98no coward, and was as anxious to find the lion as the lion undoubtedly was to find him.
In a public area in Rome, there used to be a prison divided into sixty-four cells, all exposed to the sky and connected to each other, as shown in the illustration. The events that took place there were viewed from a tall tower. The most popular game was to put a Christian in one corner cell and a lion in the diagonally opposite corner, then leave all the inner doors open. The outcome was often quite amusing. One time, the man was given a sword. He was no coward and was just as eager to locate the lion as the lion was to find him.

The man visited every cell once and only once in the fewest possible straight lines until he reached the lion's cell. The lion, curiously enough, also visited every cell once and only once in the fewest possible straight lines until he finally reached the man's cell. They started together and went at the same speed; yet, although they occasionally got glimpses of one another, they never once met. The puzzle is to show the route that each happened to take.
The man visited every cell just once, taking the fewest possible straight lines until he reached the lion's cell. Interestingly, the lion also visited every cell once, following the shortest straight path until he finally arrived at the man's cell. They started at the same time and moved at the same speed; however, even though they occasionally caught sight of each other, they never actually met. The challenge is to illustrate the route each one took.
The white squares on the chessboard represent the parishes of a diocese. Place the bishop on any square you like, and so contrive that (using the ordinary bishop's move of chess) he shall visit every one of his parishes in the fewest possible moves. Of course, all the parishes passed through on any move are regarded as "visited." You can visit any squares more than once, but you are not allowed to move twice between the same two adjoining squares. What are the fewest possible moves? The bishop need not end his visitation at the parish from which he first set out.
The white squares on the chessboard represent the parishes of a diocese. Place the bishop on any square you choose, and arrange it so that (using the bishop's standard move in chess) he visits each of his parishes in the fewest moves possible. Naturally, all the parishes he passes through during any move are considered "visited." You can visit any squares more than once, but you can’t move back and forth between the same two adjacent squares. What is the minimum number of moves possible? The bishop doesn’t have to finish his visit at the parish where he started.
Here is a new puzzle with moving counters, or coins, that at first glance looks as if it must be absurdly simple. But it will be found quite a little perplexity. I give it in this place for a reason that I will explain when we come to the next puzzle. Copy the simple diagram, enlarged, on a sheet of paper; then place two white counters on the points 1 and 2, and two red counters on 9 and 10, The puzzle is to make the red and white change places. You may move the counters one at a time in any order you like, along the lines from point to point, with the only restriction that a red and a white counter may never stand at once on the same straight line. Thus the first move can only be from 1 or 2 to 3, or from 9 or 10 to 7.
Here’s a new puzzle with moving pieces, or coins, that at first looks ridiculously simple. But it actually turns out to be quite perplexing. I’m sharing it here for a reason that I’ll explain when we get to the next puzzle. Copy the simple diagram, enlarged, on a sheet of paper; then place two white pieces on points 1 and 2, and two red pieces on points 9 and 10. The puzzle is to switch the red and white pieces. You can move the pieces one at a time in any order you want, along the lines from point to point, with the only rule that a red and a white piece can never be on the same straight line at the same time. So, the first move can only be from 1 or 2 to 3, or from 9 or 10 to 7.


This is quite a fascinating little puzzle. Place eight bishops (four black and four white) on the reduced chessboard, as shown in the illustration. The problem is to make the black bishops change places with the white ones, no bishop ever attacking another of the opposite colour. They must move alternately—first a white, then a black, then a white, and so on. When you have succeeded in doing it at all, try to find the fewest possible moves.
This is a really interesting little puzzle. Place eight bishops (four black and four white) on the smaller chessboard, as shown in the illustration. The challenge is to swap the positions of the black bishops with the white ones, making sure that no bishop attacks another of the opposite color. They have to move alternately—first a white, then a black, then a white, and so on. Once you've managed to do it, try to find the minimum number of moves possible.
If you leave out the bishops standing on black squares, and only play on the white squares, you will discover my last puzzle turned on its side.
If you remove the bishops on black squares and only play on the white squares, you’ll find my last puzzle flipped on its side.
The puzzle of making a complete tour of the chessboard with the queen in the fewest possible moves (in which squares may be visited more than once) was first given by the late Sam Loyd Pg 99in his Chess Strategy. But the solution shown below is the one he gave in American Chess-Nuts in 1868. I have recorded at least six different solutions in the minimum number of moves—fourteen—but this one is the best of all, for reasons I will explain.
The challenge of traveling across the chessboard with the queen in the least number of moves (where squares can be visited multiple times) was first presented by the late Sam Loyd Pg 99 in his Chess Strategy. However, the solution shown below is the one he provided in American Chess-Nuts in 1868. I've documented at least six different solutions that achieve the minimum of fourteen moves, but this one is the best of all, for reasons I will explain.

If you will look at the lettered square you will understand that there are only ten really differently placed squares on a chessboard—those enclosed by a dark line—all the others are mere reversals or reflections. For example, every A is a corner square, and every J a central square. Consequently, as the solution shown has a turning-point at the enclosed D square, we can obtain a solution starting from and ending at any square marked D—by just turning the board about. Now, this scheme will give you a tour starting from any A, B, C, D, E, F, or H, while no other route that I know can be adapted to more than five different starting-points. There is no Queen's Tour in fourteen moves (remember a tour must be re-entrant) that may start from a G, I, or J. But we can have a non-re-entrant path over the whole board in fourteen moves, starting from any given square. Hence the following puzzle:—
If you look at the lettered squares, you'll see that there are only ten uniquely placed squares on a chessboard—those surrounded by a dark line—all the others are just flips or reflections. For example, every A is a corner square, and every J is a central square. So, since the solution shown has a turning point at the enclosed D square, we can find a solution starting and ending at any square marked D—just by turning the board around. This setup allows you to take a tour starting from any A, B, C, D, E, F, or H, while no other route I know can handle more than five different starting points. There isn't a Queen's Tour in fourteen moves (remember a tour must come back to the starting point) that can start from a G, I, or J. But we can create a non-re-entrant path covering the entire board in fourteen moves, starting from any given square. So, here’s the following puzzle:—

Start from the J in the enclosed part of the lettered diagram and visit every square of the board in fourteen moves, ending wherever you like.
Start from the J in the shaded area of the lettered diagram and visit every square on the board in fourteen moves, ending wherever you want.

Put the point of your pencil on one of the white stars and (without ever lifting your pencil from the paper) strike out all the stars in fourteen continuous straight strokes, ending at the second white star. Your straight strokes may be in any direction you like, only every turning must be made on a star. There is no objection to striking out any star more than once.
Place the tip of your pencil on one of the white stars and, without lifting your pencil from the paper, cross out all the stars in fourteen continuous straight lines, finishing at the second white star. You can draw your straight lines in any direction you choose, but you must make every turn at a star. You can cross out any star more than once if you want.
In this case, where both your starting and ending squares are fixed inconveniently, you cannot obtain a solution by breaking a Queen's Tour, or in any other way by queen moves alone. But you are allowed to use oblique straight lines—such as from the upper white star direct to a corner star.
In this situation, where both your starting and ending squares are awkwardly set, you can't find a solution by disrupting a Queen's Tour or by using only queen moves. However, you're allowed to use diagonal straight lines—like going from the upper white star directly to a corner star.
Now then, ye land-lubbers, hoist your baby-jib-topsails, break out your spinnakers, ease off your balloon sheets, and get your head-sails set!
Now then, you land-lovers, raise your small sails, pull out your spinnakers, loosen your balloon sheets, and get your head-sails ready!
Our race consists in starting from the point at which the yacht is lying in the illustration and touching every one of the sixty-four buoys in fourteen straight courses, returning in the final tack to the buoy from which we start. The seventh course must finish at the buoy from which a flag is flying.
Our race begins at the spot where the yacht is shown in the illustration, and we need to touch all sixty-four buoys in fourteen straight legs, returning on the final leg to the buoy where we started. The seventh leg has to end at the buoy where a flag is flying.

This is difficult, because of the condition as to the flag-buoy, and because it is a re-entrant tour. But again we are allowed those oblique lines.
This is tough because of the requirement for the flag-buoy and because it's a re-entrant tour. But again, we can use those angled lines.

It will be seen that this skater has marked on the ice sixty-four points or stars, and he proposes to start from his present position near the corner and enter every one of the points in fourteen straight lines. How will he do it? Of course there is no objection to his passing over any point more than once, but his last straight stroke must bring him back to the position from which he started.
It can be observed that this skater has noted sixty-four points or stars on the ice, and he plans to start from his current position near the corner and connect every one of the points in fourteen straight lines. How will he accomplish that? Clearly, he can pass over any point more than once, but his final straight line must return him to the position where he started.
It is merely a matter of taking your pencil and starting from the spot on which the skater's foot is at present resting, and striking out all the stars in fourteen continuous straight lines, returning to the point from which you set out.
It’s just about picking up your pencil and starting from where the skater’s foot is currently resting, and drawing all the stars in fourteen continuous straight lines, coming back to the point where you began.

The puzzle in this case is simply to take your pencil and, starting from one black star, strike out all the stars in twelve straight strokes, ending at the other black star. It will be seen that the attempt shown in the illustration requires fifteen strokes. Can you do it in twelve? Every turning must be made on a star, and the lines must be parallel to the sides and diagonals of the square, as shown. In this case we are dealing with a chessboard of reduced dimensions, but only queen moves (without going outside the boundary as in the last case) are required.
The challenge here is to take your pencil and, starting from one black star, cross out all the stars in twelve straight lines, ending at the other black star. You'll see that the attempt shown in the illustration takes fifteen lines. Can you do it in twelve? Every turn must be made on a star, and the lines need to be parallel to the sides and diagonals of the square, as shown. In this case, we're working with a smaller chessboard, but only queen moves (without going outside the borders like in the last case) are allowed.

Place the queen on her own square, as shown in the illustration, and then try to discover the Pg 101greatest distance that she can travel over the board in five queen's moves without passing over any square a second time. Mark the queen's path on the board, and note carefully also that she must never cross her own track. It seems simple enough, but the reader may find that he has tripped.
Place the queen on her designated square, as shown in the illustration, and then try to figure out the Pg 101 greatest distance she can cover on the board in five moves without landing on any square more than once. Mark the queen's path on the board, and be sure to note that she must not cross her own previous moves. It seems straightforward, but you might find yourself making a mistake.

Here is a little puzzle on a reduced chessboard of forty-nine squares. St. George wishes to kill the dragon. Killing dragons was a well-known pastime of his, and, being a knight, it was only natural that he should desire to perform the feat in a series of knight's moves. Can you show how, starting from that central square, he may visit once, and only once, every square of the board in a chain of chess knight's moves, and end by capturing the dragon on his last move? Of course a variety of different ways are open to him, so try to discover a route that forms some pretty design when you have marked each successive leap by a straight line from square to square.
Here’s a fun puzzle on a smaller chessboard with forty-nine squares. St. George wants to defeat the dragon. Killing dragons was a well-known hobby of his, and as a knight, it makes sense that he’d want to do it using a series of knight's moves. Can you figure out how he can start from the central square, visit each square on the board exactly once with knight's moves, and finish by capturing the dragon on his final move? There are plenty of different ways for him to do this, so see if you can find a route that creates an interesting pattern when you connect each leap with a straight line from square to square.
One of the most beautiful districts within easy distance of London for a summer ramble is that part of Buckinghamshire known as the Valley of the Chess—at least, it was a few years ago, before it was discovered by the speculative builder. At the beginning of the present century there lived, not far from Latimers, a worthy but eccentric farmer named Lawrence. One of his queer notions was that every person who lived near the banks of the river Chess ought to be in some way acquainted with the noble game of the same name, and in order to impress this fact on his men and his neighbours he adopted at times strange terminology. For example, when one of his ewes presented him with a lamb, he would say that it had "queened a pawn"; when he put up a new barn against the highway, he called it "castling on the king's side"; and when he sent a man with a gun to keep his neighbour's birds off his fields, he spoke of it as "attacking his opponent's rooks." Everybody in the neighbourhood used to be amused at Farmer Lawrence's little jokes, and one boy (the wag of the village) who got his ears pulled by the old gentleman for stealing his "chestnuts" went so far as to call him "a silly old chess-protector!"
One of the most beautiful areas within easy reach of London for a summer walk is the part of Buckinghamshire known as the Valley of the Chess—at least, it was a few years ago, before it was discovered by developers. At the beginning of this century, not far from Latimers, there lived a good but quirky farmer named Lawrence. One of his odd ideas was that everyone living near the banks of the river Chess should know how to play the noble game of chess, and to impress this idea on his workers and neighbors, he sometimes used strange terminology. For instance, when one of his ewes had a lamb, he would say that it had "queened a pawn"; when he built a new barn along the highway, he called it "castling on the king's side"; and when he sent a man with a gun to keep his neighbor's birds out of his fields, he referred to it as "attacking his opponent's rooks." Everyone in the neighborhood used to find Farmer Lawrence's little jokes amusing, and one boy (the jokester of the village) who got his ears pulled by the old gentleman for stealing his "chestnuts" even went so far as to call him "a silly old chess-protector!"
One year he had a large square field divided into forty-nine square plots, as shown in the illustration. The white squares were sown with wheat and the black squares with barley. When the harvest time came round he gave orders that his men were first to cut the corn in the patch marked 1, and that each successive cutting should be exactly a knight's move from the last one, the thirteenth cutting being in the patch marked 13, the twenty-fifth in the patch marked 25, the thirty-seventh in the one marked 37, and the last, or forty-ninth cutting, in the patch marked 49. This was too much for poor Hodge, and each day Farmer Lawrence had to go down to the field and show which piece had to be operated upon. But the problem will perhaps present no difficulty to my readers.
One year, he had a large square field divided into forty-nine square plots, like in the illustration. The white squares were planted with wheat and the black squares with barley. When harvest time came around, he instructed his workers to first cut the corn in the plot marked 1, and each subsequent cut should follow the pattern of a knight's move from the last one. The thirteenth cut would be in the plot marked 13, the twenty-fifth in the plot marked 25, the thirty-seventh in the one marked 37, and the final, or forty-ninth cut, in the plot marked 49. This was too much for poor Hodge, and each day Farmer Lawrence had to go down to the field and show which section needed to be worked on. But this problem will probably be easy for my readers.

In this puzzle the twenty kennels do not communicate with one another by doors, but are divided off by a low wall. The solitary occupant is the greyhound which lives in the kennel in the top left-hand corner. When he is allowed his liberty he has to obtain it by visiting every kennel once and only once in a series of knight's Pg 102moves, ending at the bottom right-hand corner, which is open to the world. The lines in the above diagram show one solution. The puzzle is to discover in how many different ways the greyhound may thus make his exit from his corner kennel.
In this puzzle, the twenty kennels don't connect with each other through doors but are separated by a low wall. The only resident is the greyhound who lives in the kennel at the top left corner. When he gets the chance to roam free, he has to visit each kennel once and only once in a series of knight's Pg 102 moves, finishing at the bottom right corner, which is open to the outside world. The lines in the diagram above show one solution. The challenge is to find out how many different ways the greyhound can make his way out from his corner kennel.


In introducing a little Commonwealth problem, I must first explain that the diagram represents the sixty-four fields, all properly fenced off from one another, of an Australian settlement, though I need hardly say that our kith and kin "down under" always do set out their land in this methodical and exact manner. It will be seen that in every one of the four corners is a kangaroo. Why kangaroos have a marked preference for corner plots has never been satisfactorily explained, and it would be out of place to discuss the point here. I should also add that kangaroos, as is well known, always leap in what we call "knight's moves." In fact, chess players would probably have adopted the better term "kangaroo's move" had not chess been invented before kangaroos.
In introducing a little Commonwealth problem, I first need to explain that the diagram shows the sixty-four fields, all properly fenced off from each other, of an Australian settlement, though I hardly need to say that our relatives "down under" always set up their land in this organized and precise way. It will be noted that there is a kangaroo in each of the four corners. Why kangaroos have a preference for corner plots has never been satisfactorily explained, and it's not really the right time to discuss it here. I should also mention that kangaroos, as is widely known, always jump in what we call "knight's moves." In fact, chess players might have chosen the more fitting term "kangaroo's move" if chess had not been invented before kangaroos.
The puzzle is simply this. One morning each kangaroo went for his morning hop, and in sixteen consecutive knight's leaps visited just fifteen different fields and jumped back to his corner. No field was visited by more than one of the kangaroos. The diagram shows how they arranged matters. What you are asked to do is to show how they might have performed the feat without any kangaroo ever crossing the horizontal line in the middle of the square that divides the board into two equal parts.
The puzzle is straightforward. One morning, each kangaroo took its morning hop, and in sixteen consecutive leaps, they visited just fifteen different fields before jumping back to their corner. No field was visited by more than one kangaroo. The diagram illustrates how they organized this. Your task is to demonstrate how they could have accomplished this without any kangaroo crossing the horizontal line in the middle of the square that divides the board into two equal halves.

We cannot divide the ordinary chessboard into four equal square compartments, and describe a complete tour, or even path, in each compartment. But we may divide it into four compartments, as in the illustration, two containing each twenty squares, and the other two each twelve squares, and so obtain an interesting puzzle. You are asked to describe a complete re-entrant tour on this board, starting where you like, but visiting every square in each successive compartment before passing into another one, and making the final leap back to the square from which the knight set out. It is not difficult, but will be found very entertaining and not uninstructive.
We can’t split a regular chessboard into four equal square sections and create a complete tour or even a path in each section. However, we can divide it into four sections, as shown in the illustration, with two containing twenty squares each and the other two containing twelve squares each. This creates an interesting puzzle. You’re challenged to describe a complete re-entrant tour on this board, starting wherever you want, but visiting every square in each section before moving to another one, and making the final jump back to the square where the knight started. It’s not difficult, but it will be quite entertaining and somewhat educational.
Whether a re-entrant "tour" or a complete knight's "path" is possible or not on a rectangular board of given dimensions depends not only on its dimensions, but also on its shape. A tour is obviously not possible on a board containing an odd number of cells, such as 5 by 5 or 7 by 7, for this reason: Every successive leap of the knight must be from a white square to a black and a black to a white alternately. But if there be an odd number of cells or squares there must be one more square of one colour than of the other, therefore the path must begin from a square of the colour that is in excess, and end on a similar colour, and as a knight's Pg 103move from one colour to a similar colour is impossible the path cannot be re-entrant. But a perfect tour may be made on a rectangular board of any dimensions provided the number of squares be even, and that the number of squares on one side be not less than 6 and on the other not less than 5. In other words, the smallest rectangular board on which a re-entrant tour is possible is one that is 6 by 5.
Whether a re-entrant "tour" or a complete knight's "path" is possible on a rectangular board of specific dimensions depends not only on its size but also on its shape. A tour clearly can’t happen on a board with an odd number of cells, like 5 by 5 or 7 by 7, for this reason: Every time the knight jumps, it must move from a white square to a black one and from a black square to a white square alternately. However, if there’s an odd number of cells, there will be one more square of one color than the other, meaning the path must start and end on the color that has more squares. Since a knight’s move can’t go from one color to the same color, the path can’t be re-entrant. But a complete tour can be done on a rectangular board of any size as long as the number of squares is even and one side has at least 6 squares while the other side has at least 5. In other words, the smallest rectangular board that allows for a re-entrant tour is 6 by 5.
A complete knight's path (not re-entrant) over all the squares of a board is never possible if there be only two squares on one side; nor is it possible on a square board of smaller dimensions than 5 by 5. So that on a board 4 by 4 we can neither describe a knight's tour nor a complete knight's path; we must leave one square unvisited. Yet on a board 4 by 3 (containing four squares fewer) a complete path may be described in sixteen different ways. It may interest the reader to discover all these. Every path that starts from and ends at different squares is here counted as a different solution, and even reverse routes are called different.
A complete knight's path (not re-entrant) covering all the squares of a board is impossible if there are only two squares on one side; it's also not possible on a square board smaller than 5 by 5. This means that on a 4 by 4 board, we can't create a knight's tour or a complete knight's path; one square must be left unvisited. However, on a 4 by 3 board (which has four squares less), a complete path can be created in sixteen different ways. Readers might find it interesting to discover all these. Every path that starts from one square and ends at a different square is counted as a separate solution, and even reverse paths are considered different.

I will repeat that if a chessboard be cut into four equal parts, as indicated by the dark lines in the illustration, it is not possible to perform a knight's tour, either re-entrant or not, on one of the parts. The best re-entrant attempt is shown, in which each knight has to trespass twice on other parts. The puzzle is to cut the board differently into four parts, each of the same size and shape, so that a re-entrant knight's tour may be made on each part. Cuts along the dotted lines will not do, as the four central squares of the board would be either detached or hanging on by a mere thread.
I’ll say it again: if you cut a chessboard into four equal sections, as shown by the dark lines in the illustration, it’s impossible to complete a knight’s tour, whether it’s re-entrant or not, on any one of those sections. The best re-entrant attempt is illustrated here, where each knight has to move into other sections twice. The challenge is to cut the board in a different way into four parts, each the same size and shape, so that a re-entrant knight's tour can be completed on each part. Cuts along the dotted lines won’t work, since the four central squares of the board would either be completely separated or barely hanging on.
Some few years ago I happened to read somewhere that Abnit Vandermonde, a clever mathematician, who was born in 1736 and died in 1793, had devoted a good deal of study to the question of knight's tours. Beyond what may be gathered from a few fragmentary references, I am not aware of the exact nature or results of his investigations, but one thing attracted my attention, and that was the statement that he had proposed the question of a tour of the knight over the six surfaces of a cube, each surface being a chessboard. Whether he obtained a solution or not I do not know, but I have never seen one published. So I at once set to work to master this interesting problem. Perhaps the reader may like to attempt it.
A few years ago, I came across something that said Abnit Vandermonde, a smart mathematician born in 1736 and who died in 1793, spent a lot of time studying knight's tours. Aside from a few scattered mentions, I'm not familiar with the specifics or outcomes of his research, but one thing caught my attention: he posed the question of a knight's tour across the six faces of a cube, with each face being a chessboard. I don’t know if he found a solution or not, but I haven’t seen one published. So, I immediately started working on this intriguing problem. Maybe the reader would like to take a crack at it.

In the illustration we have eight toadstools, with white frogs on 1 and 3 and black frogs on 6 and 8. The puzzle is to move one frog at a time, in any order, along one of the straight lines from toadstool to toadstool, until they have exchanged places, the white frogs being left on 6 and 8 and the black ones on 1 and 3. If you use four counters on a simple diagram, you will find this quite easy, but it is a little more puzzling to do it in only seven plays, any number of successive moves by one frog counting as one play. Of course, more than one frog cannot be on a toadstool at the same time.
In the illustration, we have eight toadstools, with white frogs on 1 and 3 and black frogs on 6 and 8. The challenge is to move one frog at a time, in any order, along one of the straight lines from toadstool to toadstool until they have swapped places, with the white frogs ending up on 6 and 8 and the black ones on 1 and 3. If you place four counters on a simple diagram, you’ll find this pretty easy, but it gets a bit trickier to do it in just seven moves, where any number of consecutive moves by one frog counts as one play. Of course, more than one frog cannot be on a toadstool at the same time.
The following puzzle has an added interest from the circumstance that a correct solution of it secured for a certain young Chinaman the hand of his charming bride. The wealthiest mandarin within a radius of a hundred miles of Peking was Hi-Chum-Chop, and his beautiful daughter, Peeky-Bo, had innumerable admirers. One of her most ardent lovers was Winky-Hi, and when he asked the old mandarin for his consent to their marriage, Hi-Chum-Chop presented him with the following puzzle and promised his consent if the youth brought him the correct answer within a week. Winky-Hi, following a habit which obtains among certain Pg 104solvers to this day, gave it to all his friends, and when he had compared their solutions he handed in the best one as his own. Luckily it was quite right. The mandarin thereupon fulfilled his promise. The fatted pup was killed for the wedding feast, and when Hi-Chum-Chop passed Winky-Hi the liver wing all present knew that it was a token of eternal goodwill, in accordance with Chinese custom from time immemorial.
The following puzzle is particularly interesting because a correct solution won a young Chinese man the hand of his lovely bride. The richest mandarin within a hundred miles of Beijing was Hi-Chum-Chop, and his stunning daughter, Peeky-Bo, had countless admirers. One of her most passionate suitors was Winky-Hi, and when he asked the old mandarin for permission to marry her, Hi-Chum-Chop gave him the following puzzle, promising his approval if the young man provided the right answer within a week. Winky-Hi, following a practice still common among some Pg 104solvers today, shared it with all his friends, and after comparing their solutions, he submitted the best one as his own. Fortunately, it was correct. The mandarin then kept his promise. The prized pup was slaughtered for the wedding banquet, and when Hi-Chum-Chop passed Winky-Hi the liver wing, everyone present understood it as a sign of everlasting goodwill, in accordance with Chinese tradition from ancient times.
The mandarin had a table divided into twenty-five squares, as shown in the diagram. On each of twenty-four of these squares was placed a numbered counter, just as I have indicated. The puzzle is to get the counters in numerical order by moving them one at a time in what we call "knight's moves." Counter 1 should be where 16 is, 2 where 11 is, 4 where 13 now is, and so on. It will be seen that all the counters on shaded squares are in their proper positions. Of course, two counters may never be on a square at the same time. Can you perform the feat in the fewest possible moves?
The mandarin had a table with twenty-five squares, as shown in the diagram. On twenty-four of these squares, there was a numbered counter, just like I mentioned. The challenge is to arrange the counters in numerical order by moving them one at a time using "knight's moves." Counter 1 should go where 16 is, 2 should go where 11 is, 4 should go where 13 is now, and so on. You can see that all the counters on shaded squares are in their correct positions. Of course, two counters can never occupy the same square at the same time. Can you complete the task in the fewest possible moves?

In order to make the manner of moving perfectly clear I will point out that the first knight's move can only be made by 1 or by 2 or by 10. Supposing 1 moves, then the next move must be by 23, 4, 8, or 21. As there is never more than one square vacant, the order in which the counters move may be written out as follows: 1—21—14—18—22, etc. A rough diagram should be made on a larger scale for practice, and numbered counters or pieces of cardboard used.
To make the way of moving really clear, I want to point out that the first knight's move can only be made by 1, 2, or 10. If 1 moves, then the next move has to be by 23, 4, 8, or 21. Since there's never more than one square empty, the order in which the pieces move can be listed like this: 1—21—14—18—22, etc. You should create a rough diagram on a larger scale for practice, using numbered pieces or cardboard.
The following is the plan of the north wing of a certain gaol, showing the sixteen cells all communicating by open doorways. Fifteen prisoners were numbered and arranged in the cells as shown. They were allowed to change their cells as much as they liked, but if two prisoners were ever in the same cell together there was a severe punishment promised them.
The following is the layout of the north wing of a certain jail, showing the sixteen cells that all connect through open doorways. Fifteen prisoners were assigned numbers and placed in the cells as indicated. They could switch cells whenever they wanted, but if two prisoners were ever in the same cell at the same time, they faced a harsh punishment.

Now, in order to reduce their growing obesity, and to combine physical exercise with mental recreation, the prisoners decided, on the suggestion of one of their number who was interested in knight's tours, to try to form themselves into a perfect knight's path without breaking the prison regulations, and leaving the bottom right-hand corner cell vacant, as originally. The joke of the matter is that the arrangement at which they arrived was as follows:—
Now, to tackle their increasing obesity and mix physical exercise with some mental fun, the prisoners decided, following a suggestion from one of their own who was interested in knight's tours, to try to create a perfect knight's path without violating prison rules, while keeping the bottom right-hand corner cell empty, just like before. The funny part is that the arrangement they came up with was as follows:—
8 | 3 | 12 | 1 |
11 | 14 | 9 | 6 |
4 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
15 | 10 | 5 |
The warders failed to detect the important fact that the men could not possibly get into this position without two of them having been at some time in the same cell together. Make the attempt with counters on a ruled diagram, and you will find that this is so. Otherwise the solution is correct enough, each member being, as required, a knight's move from the preceding number, and the original corner cell vacant.
The warders missed the crucial point that the men couldn't have ended up in this position without two of them having shared a cell at some point. If you try it out using counters on a grid, you'll see this is true. Otherwise, the solution is fine, with each member being, as needed, a knight's move away from the previous number, and the original corner cell left empty.
The puzzle is to start with the men placed as in the illustration and show how it might have been done in the fewest moves, while giving a complete rest to as many prisoners as possible.
The challenge is to begin with the men positioned as shown in the illustration and demonstrate how it could have been done in the least number of moves, while allowing as many prisoners as possible to rest completely.
As there is never more than one vacant cell for a man to enter, it is only necessary to write down the numbers of the men in the order in which they move. It is clear that very few men can be left throughout in their cells undisturbed, but I will leave the solver to discover just how many, as this is a very essential part of the puzzle.
As there’s only ever one empty cell for a person to enter, you just need to note the numbers of the men as they move. It’s obvious that only a few men can remain in their cells without being disturbed, but I’ll let the solver figure out how many, as this is a key part of the puzzle.
Pg 105344.—THE KENNEL PUZZLE.
Pg 105344.—THE KENNEL PUZZLE.

A man has twenty-five dog kennels all communicating with each other by doorways, as shown in the illustration. He wishes to arrange his twenty dogs so that they shall form a knight's string from dog No. 1 to dog No. 20, the bottom row of five kennels to be left empty, as at present. This is to be done by moving one dog at a time into a vacant kennel. The dogs are well trained to obedience, and may be trusted to remain in the kennels in which they are placed, except that if two are placed in the same kennel together they will fight it out to the death. How is the puzzle to be solved in the fewest possible moves without two dogs ever being together?
A man has twenty-five dog kennels that are all connected by doorways, as shown in the illustration. He wants to arrange his twenty dogs so they form a knight's string from dog No. 1 to dog No. 20, leaving the bottom row of five kennels empty, just like they are now. This should be done by moving one dog at a time into an empty kennel. The dogs are well trained to obey and can be trusted to stay in the kennels they’re put in, but if two are placed in the same kennel, they will fight to the death. How can this puzzle be solved in the fewest moves without putting two dogs together?

Here is a neat little puzzle in counting. In how many different ways may the two pawns advance to the eighth square? You may move them in any order you like to form a different sequence. For example, you may move the Q R P (one or two squares) first, or the K R P first, or one pawn as far as you like before touching the other. Any sequence is permissible, only in this puzzle as soon as a pawn reaches the eighth square it is dead, and remains there unconverted. Can you count the number of different sequences? At first it will strike you as being very difficult, but I will show that it is really quite simple when properly attacked.
Here’s a fun little counting puzzle. In how many different ways can the two pawns move to the eighth square? You can move them in any order to create a different sequence. For example, you could move the Q R P (one or two squares) first, or the K R P first, or you can move one pawn as far as you want before touching the other. Any sequence is allowed, but in this puzzle, as soon as a pawn reaches the eighth square, it’s considered dead and stays there unconverted. Can you figure out the number of different sequences? At first, it might seem really difficult, but I’ll show you that it’s actually quite simple when you approach it the right way.
VARIOUS CHESS PUZZLES.
"Chesse-play is a good and wittie exercise of
the minde for some kinde of men."
Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy.
"Chess is a clever and engaging exercise for the mind for certain types of people."
Burton's *Anatomy of Melancholy*.
I have a single chessboard and a single set of chessmen. In how many different ways may the men be correctly set up for the beginning of a game? I find that most people slip at a particular point in making the calculation.
I have one chessboard and one set of chess pieces. How many different ways can the pieces be correctly arranged for the start of a game? I've noticed that most people make a mistake at a specific point in their calculations.
Can you say correctly just how many squares and other rectangles the chessboard contains? In other words, in how great a number of different ways is it possible to indicate a square or other rectangle enclosed by lines that separate the squares of the board?
Can you say exactly how many squares and other rectangles the chessboard has? In other words, how many different ways can you indicate a square or other rectangle defined by the lines that separate the squares of the board?

The White rooks cannot move outside the little square in which they are enclosed except on the final move, in giving checkmate. The puzzle Pg 106is how to checkmate Black in the fewest possible moves with No. 8 rook, the other rooks being left in numerical order round the sides of their square with the break between 1 and 7.
The white rooks can't move out of the small square they're in, except for the final move to deliver checkmate. The challenge is to checkmate Black in the fewest moves possible using the No. 8 rook, while the other rooks stay in numerical order around the sides of their square, with a gap between 1 and 7. Pg 106
Some years ago the puzzle was proposed to construct an imaginary game of chess, in which White shall be stalemated in the fewest possible moves with all the thirty-two pieces on the board. Can you build up such a position in fewer than twenty moves?
Some years ago, the challenge was presented to create a hypothetical game of chess where White is stalemated in the fewest possible moves, with all thirty-two pieces on the board. Can you come up with such a position in fewer than twenty moves?

Set up the position shown in the diagram. Then the condition of the puzzle is—White to play and checkmate in six moves. Notwithstanding the complexities, I will show how the manner of play may be condensed into quite a few lines, merely stating here that the first two moves of White cannot be varied.
Set up the position shown in the diagram. The challenge is this—White to play and checkmate in six moves. Despite the complexities, I'll show how the gameplay can be simplified into just a few lines, simply noting that the first two moves of White cannot be changed.
The following is a prize puzzle propounded by me some years ago. Produce a game of chess which, after sixteen moves, shall leave White with all his sixteen men on their original squares and Black in possession of his king alone (not necessarily on his own square). White is then to force mate in three moves.
The following is a prize puzzle I proposed a few years ago. Create a game of chess where, after sixteen moves, White has all his sixteen pieces on their original squares and Black only has his king (not necessarily on his own square). White must then force checkmate in three moves.
Starting from the ordinary arrangement of the pieces as for a game, what is the smallest possible number of moves necessary in order to arrive at the following position? The moves for both sides must, of course, be played strictly in accordance with the rules of the game, though the result will necessarily be a very weird kind of chess.
Starting from the standard setup of the pieces for a game, what is the minimum number of moves needed to reach the following position? The moves for both sides must, of course, follow the rules of the game, even though the outcome will be a rather unusual type of chess.


Place the remaining eight White pieces in such a position that White shall have the choice of thirty-six different mates on the move. Every move that checkmates and leaves a different position is a different mate. The pieces already placed must not be moved.
Place the remaining eight White pieces in such a way that White will have the option of thirty-six different checkmates on the move. Every checkmate that results in a unique position counts as a different checkmate. The pieces that are already set must not be moved.
In a game of chess between Mr. Black and Mr. White, Black was in difficulties, and as usual was obliged to catch a train. So he proposed that White should complete the game in his absence on condition that no moves whatever Pg 107should be made for Black, but only with the White pieces. Mr. White accepted, but to his dismay found it utterly impossible to win the game under such conditions. Try as he would, he could not checkmate his opponent. On which square did Mr. Black leave his king? The other pieces are in their proper positions in the diagram. White may leave Black in check as often as he likes, for it makes no difference, as he can never arrive at a checkmate position.
In a chess game between Mr. Black and Mr. White, Black was in trouble and, as usual, had to catch a train. So he suggested that White finish the game in his absence, with the condition that no moves should be made for Black, only with the White pieces. Mr. White agreed, but to his frustration, he found it completely impossible to win the game under these circumstances. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn't checkmate his opponent. Where did Mr. Black leave his king? The other pieces are in their correct positions in the diagram. White can leave Black in check as often as he wants, because it doesn't matter; he can never reach a checkmate position. Pg 107


Strolling into one of the rooms of a London club, I noticed a position left by two players who had gone. This position is shown in the diagram. It is evident that White has checkmated Black. But how did he do it? That is the puzzle.
Strolling into one of the rooms of a London club, I noticed a spot left by two players who had left. This position is shown in the diagram. It’s clear that White has checkmated Black. But how did he achieve that? That’s the puzzle.
Can you place two White rooks and a White knight on the board so that the Black king (who must be on one of the four squares in the middle of the board) shall be in check with no possible move open to him? "In other words," the reader will say, "the king is to be shown checkmated." Well, you can use the term if you wish, though I intentionally do not employ it myself. The mere fact that there is no White king on the board would be a sufficient reason for my not doing so.
Can you put two White rooks and a White knight on the board in a way that puts the Black king (who has to be on one of the four squares in the center of the board) in check with no moves available for him? "In other words," the reader might say, "the king is to be shown checkmated." Sure, you can use that term if you want, but I intentionally don't use it myself. The simple fact that there isn't a White king on the board is a good reason for me not to use it.

My next puzzle is supposed to be Chinese, many hundreds of years old, and never fails to interest. White to play and mate, moving each of the three pieces once, and once only.
My next puzzle is supposed to be Chinese, several hundred years old, and always captivates interest. White to move and checkmate by moving each of the three pieces once, and only once.
In how many different ways may I place six pawns on the chessboard so that there shall be an even number of unoccupied squares in every row and every column? We are not here considering the diagonals at all, and every different six squares occupied makes a different solution, so we have not to exclude reversals or reflections.
In how many different ways can I place six pawns on the chessboard so that there is an even number of unoccupied squares in every row and every column? We aren’t considering the diagonals at all, and every unique arrangement of six occupied squares counts as a different solution, so we don’t need to worry about reversals or reflections.
Here is a little game of solitaire that is quite easy, but not so easy as to be uninteresting. You can either rule out the squares on a sheet of cardboard or paper, or you can use a portion Pg 108of your chessboard. I have shown numbered counters in the illustration so as to make the solution easy and intelligible to all, but chess pawns or draughts will serve just as well in practice.
Here’s a simple solitaire game that's easy to play, but not so easy that it becomes boring. You can either draw squares on a piece of cardboard or paper, or use part Pg 108 of your chessboard. I've included numbered counters in the illustration to make the solution clear and understandable for everyone, but chess pieces or checkers will work just as well in practice.

The puzzle is to remove all the counters except one, and this one that is left must be No. 1. You remove a counter by jumping over another counter to the next space beyond, if that square is vacant, but you cannot make a leap in a diagonal direction. The following moves will make the play quite clear: 1-9, 2-10, 1-2, and so on. Here 1 jumps over 9, and you remove 9 from the board; then 2 jumps over 10, and you remove 10; then 1 jumps over 2, and you remove 2. Every move is thus a capture, until the last capture of all is made by No. 1.
The goal is to remove all the counters except for one, which must be No. 1. You can remove a counter by jumping over another counter to the next vacant space beyond it, but you can’t jump diagonally. The following moves will make the gameplay clear: 1-9, 2-10, 1-2, and so on. Here, 1 jumps over 9, and you remove 9 from the board; then 2 jumps over 10, and you remove 10; then 1 jumps over 2, and you remove 2. Each move is a capture, and the final capture is made by No. 1.

Here is an extension of the last game of solitaire. All you need is a chessboard and the thirty-two pieces, or the same number of draughts or counters. In the illustration numbered counters are used. The puzzle is to remove all the counters except two, and these two must have originally been on the same side of the board; that is, the two left must either belong to the group 1 to 16 or to the other group, 17 to 32. You remove a counter by jumping over it with another counter to the next square beyond, if that square is vacant, but you cannot make a leap in a diagonal direction. The following moves will make the play quite clear: 3-11, 4-12, 3-4, 13-3. Here 3 jumps over 11, and you remove 11; 4 jumps over 12, and you remove 12; and so on. It will be found a fascinating little game of patience, and the solution requires the exercise of some ingenuity.
Here's an extension of the last game of solitaire. All you need is a chessboard and thirty-two pieces, or the same number of checkers or tokens. In the illustration, numbered tokens are used. The goal is to remove all the tokens except for two, and these two must have originally been on the same side of the board; that is, the two left must either belong to the group of 1 to 16 or to the other group of 17 to 32. You remove a token by jumping over it with another token to the next square beyond, as long as that square is empty, but you can't jump diagonally. The following moves will clarify the game: 3-11, 4-12, 3-4, 13-3. Here, 3 jumps over 11, and you remove 11; 4 jumps over 12, and you remove 12; and so on. It turns out to be a fascinating little game of patience, and finding the solution takes some clever thinking.
One Christmas Eve I was travelling by rail to a little place in one of the southern counties. The compartment was very full, and the passengers were wedged in very tightly. My neighbour in one of the corner seats was closely studying a position set up on one of those little folding chessboards that can be carried conveniently in the pocket, and I could scarcely avoid looking at it myself. Here is the position:—
One Christmas Eve, I was taking the train to a small town in one of the southern counties. The compartment was really crowded, and the passengers were packed in tightly. My neighbor in one of the corner seats was intensely examining a chess position set up on one of those small folding chessboards that can be easily carried in a pocket, and I could hardly help but look at it too. Here is the position:—

My fellow-passenger suddenly turned his head and caught the look of bewilderment on my face.
My travel companion suddenly turned his head and saw the confused look on my face.
"Do you play chess?" he asked.
"Do you play chess?" he asked.
"Yes, a little. What is that? A problem?"
"Yeah, a bit. What's that? A problem?"
"Problem? No; a game."
"Problem? Nope; just a game."
"Impossible!" I exclaimed rather rudely. "The position is a perfect monstrosity!"
"That's impossible!" I exclaimed quite rudely. "The situation is just a total disaster!"
He took from his pocket a postcard and handed it to me. It bore an address at one side and on the other the words "43. K to Kt 8."
He pulled a postcard out of his pocket and handed it to me. One side had an address, and the other side read "43. K to Kt 8."
"It is a correspondence game." he exclaimed. "That is my friend's last move, and I am considering my reply."
"It’s a correspondence game," he said. "That was my friend's last move, and I'm thinking about my response."
"But you really must excuse me; the position seems utterly impossible. How on earth, for example—"
"But you really have to excuse me; the situation seems completely impossible. How on earth, for example—"
"Ah!" he broke in smilingly. "I see; you are a beginner; you play to win."
"Ah!" he interrupted with a smile. "I get it; you're a beginner; you play to win."
He laughed aloud.
He laughed out loud.
"You have much to learn. My friend and myself do not play for results of that antiquated kind. We seek in chess the wonderful, the whimsical, the weird. Did you ever see a position like that?"
"You have a lot to learn. My friend and I aren’t focused on those outdated results. In chess, we look for the amazing, the strange, the bizarre. Have you ever seen a position like that?"
I inwardly congratulated myself that I never had.
I quietly congratulated myself that I never had.
"That position, sir, materializes the sinuous evolvements and syncretic, synthetic, and synchronous concatenations of two cerebral individualities. It is the product of an amphoteric and intercalatory interchange of—"
"That position, sir, represents the complex developments and blended, combined, and simultaneous connections of two intellectual personalities. It is the result of a versatile and alternating exchange of—"
"Have you seen the evening paper, sir?" interrupted the man opposite, holding out a newspaper. I noticed on the margin beside his thumb some pencilled writing. Thanking him, I took the paper and read—"Insane, but quite harmless. He is in my charge."
"Have you seen the evening paper, sir?" interrupted the man across from me, handing over a newspaper. I noticed some pencil writing in the margin next to his thumb. Thanking him, I took the paper and read—"Insane, but completely harmless. He is under my care."
After that I let the poor fellow run on in his wild way until both got out at the next station.
After that, I let the poor guy go on in his wild way until they both got off at the next station.
But that queer position became fixed indelibly in my mind, with Black's last move 43. K to Kt 8; and a short time afterwards I found it actually possible to arrive at such a position in forty-three moves. Can the reader construct such a sequence? How did White get his rooks and king's bishop into their present positions, considering Black can never have moved his king's bishop? No odds were given, and every move was perfectly legitimate.
But that strange position became permanently etched in my mind after Black's last move 43. K to Kt 8; and shortly after, I realized it was actually possible to reach that position in forty-three moves. Can the reader figure out such a sequence? How did White get his rooks and king's bishop into their current spots, given that Black could never have moved his king's bishop? No odds were given, and every move was completely legitimate.
MEASURING, WEIGHING, AND PACKING PUZZLES.
"Measure still for measure."
Measure for Measure, v. 1.
"An eye for an eye."
Measure for Measure, act 1.
Apparently the first printed puzzle involving the measuring of a given quantity of liquid by pouring from one vessel to others of known capacity was that propounded by Niccola Fontana, better known as "Tartaglia" (the stammerer), 1500-1559. It consists in dividing 24 oz. of valuable balsam into three equal parts, the only measures available being vessels holding 5, 11, and 13 ounces respectively. There are many different solutions to this puzzle in six manipulations, or pourings from one vessel to another. Bachet de Méziriac reprinted this and other of Tartaglia's puzzles in his Problèmes plaisans et délectables (1612). It is the general opinion that puzzles of this class can only be solved by trial, but I think formulæ can be constructed for the solution generally of certain related cases. It is a practically unexplored field for investigation.
The first printed puzzle about measuring a specific amount of liquid by pouring from one container to others with known capacities seems to come from Niccola Fontana, famously known as "Tartaglia" (the stammerer), who lived from 1500 to 1559. The puzzle involves splitting 24 oz. of valuable balsam into three equal parts, using only containers that hold 5, 11, and 13 ounces. There are many ways to solve this puzzle with six actions, or pouring from one vessel to another. Bachet de Méziriac later reprinted this and other puzzles by Tartaglia in his Problèmes plaisans et délectables (1612). Many believe that these types of puzzles can only be solved through trial and error, but I think that formulas could be developed for solving certain related cases. This is a relatively unexplored area for research.
The classic weighing problem is, of course, that proposed by Bachet. It entails the determination of the least number of weights that would serve to weigh any integral number of pounds from 1 lb. to 40 lbs. inclusive, when we are allowed to put a weight in either of the two pans. The answer is 1, 3, 9, and 27 lbs. Tartaglia had previously propounded the same puzzle with the condition that the weights may only be placed in one pan. The answer in that case is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 lbs. Major MacMahon has solved the problem quite generally. A full account will be found in Ball's Mathematical Recreations (5th edition).
The classic weighing problem is, of course, the one proposed by Bachet. It involves figuring out the smallest number of weights that can be used to weigh any whole number of pounds from 1 lb. to 40 lbs. inclusive, when we can place a weight in either of the two pans. The answer is 1, 3, 9, and 27 lbs. Tartaglia had previously posed the same puzzle under the condition that the weights can only be placed in one pan. The answer in that case is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 lbs. Major MacMahon has addressed the problem more generally. A full account can be found in Ball's Mathematical Recreations (5th edition).
Packing puzzles, in which we are required to pack a maximum number of articles of given dimensions into a box of known dimensions, are, I believe, of quite recent introduction. At least I cannot recall any example in the books of the old writers. One would rather expect to find in the toy shops the idea presented as a mechanical puzzle, but I do not think I have ever seen such a thing. The nearest approach to it would appear to be the puzzles of the jig-saw character, where there is only one depth of the pieces to be adjusted.
Packing puzzles, where we need to fit the most number of items with specific dimensions into a box with known dimensions, seem to be a recent development. I can’t recall any examples in the works of older writers. You might expect to see this concept in toy stores as a mechanical puzzle, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across one. The closest thing would probably be jigsaw puzzles, where there’s only one depth of pieces to fit together.
One Christmas Eve three Weary Willies came into possession of what was to them a veritable wassail bowl, in the form of a small barrel, containing exactly six quarts of fine ale. One of the men possessed a five-pint jug and another a three-pint jug, and the problem for them was to divide the liquor equally amongst them without waste. Of course, they are not to use any other vessels or measures. If you can show how it was to be done at all, then try to find the way that requires the fewest possible manipulations, every separate pouring from one vessel to another, or down a man's throat, counting as a manipulation.
One Christmas Eve, three tired guys ended up with what they considered a true party drink, in the shape of a small barrel holding exactly six quarts of great ale. One of them had a five-pint jug, and the other had a three-pint jug, and their challenge was to split the beer equally among themselves without wasting any. They couldn’t use any other containers or measurements. If you can figure out how to do it, try to find the method that requires the least amount of moves, with every single pour from one container to another, or into someone’s mouth, counting as a move.
"A curious little point occurred to me in my dispensary this morning," said a doctor. "I had a bottle containing ten ounces of spirits of wine, and another bottle containing ten ounces of water. I poured a quarter of an ounce of spirits into the water and shook them up together. The mixture was then clearly forty to one. Then I poured back a quarter-ounce of the mixture, so that the two bottles should again each contain the same quantity of fluid. What proportion of spirits to water did the spirits of wine bottle then contain?"
"A curious little thought crossed my mind in my office this morning," said a doctor. "I had a bottle with ten ounces of alcohol and another bottle with ten ounces of water. I poured a quarter ounce of the alcohol into the water and mixed them together. The mixture was clearly at a ratio of forty to one. Then I poured a quarter ounce of the mixture back, so that both bottles would again have the same amount of liquid. What ratio of alcohol to water did the alcohol bottle contain then?"
The men in the illustration are disputing over the liquid contents of a barrel. What the particular liquid is it is impossible to say, for we are unable to look into the barrel; so we will call it water. One man says that the barrel is more than half full, while the other insists that it is not half full. What is their easiest way of settling the point? It is not necessary to use stick, string, or implement of any kind for measuring. I Pg 110give this merely as one of the simplest possible examples of the value of ordinary sagacity in the solving of puzzles. What are apparently very difficult problems may frequently be solved in a similarly easy manner if we only use a little common sense.
The men in the illustration are arguing about what's inside a barrel. We can't tell exactly what the liquid is since we can't see inside, so let’s just call it water. One man claims the barrel is more than half full, while the other argues it’s not even half full. What’s the easiest way for them to resolve this? They don’t need any sticks, strings, or tools to measure. I Pg 110 mention this as one of the simplest examples of how everyday common sense can help solve problems. What seem like tough challenges can often be figured out easily if we just apply a bit of logic.

Here is a new poser in measuring liquids that will be found interesting. A man has two ten-quart vessels full of wine, and a five-quart and a four-quart measure. He wants to put exactly three quarts into each of the two measures. How is he to do it? And how many manipulations (pourings from one vessel to another) do you require? Of course, waste of wine, tilting, and other tricks are not allowed.
Here’s a new challenge in measuring liquids that you might find interesting. A man has two ten-quart containers filled with wine, along with a five-quart and a four-quart measuring cup. He wants to pour exactly three quarts into each of the two measuring cups. How should he do this? And how many moves (pouring from one container to another) are needed? Of course, wasting wine, tilting, and other sneaky methods are not allowed.
An honest dairyman in preparing his milk for public consumption employed a can marked B, containing milk, and a can marked A, containing water. From can A he poured enough to double the contents of can B. Then he poured from can B into can A enough to double its contents. Then he finally poured from can A into can B until their contents were exactly equal. After these operations he would send the can A to London, and the puzzle is to discover what are the relative proportions of milk and water that he provides for the Londoners' breakfast-tables. Do they get equal proportions of milk and water—or two parts of milk and one of water—or what? It is an interesting question, though, curiously enough, we are not told how much milk or water he puts into the cans at the start of his operations.
A honest dairy farmer, while preparing his milk for sale, used one can labeled B for milk and another labeled A for water. From can A, he poured enough water to double the amount in can B. Then, he poured from can B into can A enough to double its contents. Finally, he transferred from can A to can B until both cans had the same amount. After this, he would send can A to London, and the challenge is to figure out the relative amounts of milk and water for the breakfast tables in London. Are they getting equal amounts of milk and water, or two parts milk to one part water, or something else? It’s an interesting question, but strangely, we’re not told how much milk or water he started with in the cans.
Mr. Goodfellow has adopted a capital idea of late. When he gives a little dinner party and the time arrives to smoke, after the departure of the ladies, he sometimes finds that the conversation is apt to become too political, too personal, too slow, or too scandalous. Then he always manages to introduce to the company some new poser that he has secreted up his sleeve for the occasion. This invariably results in no end of interesting discussion and debate, and puts everybody in a good humour.
Mr. Goodfellow has come up with a great idea recently. When he hosts a small dinner party and it’s time to smoke, after the ladies leave, he often notices that the conversation can get too political, too personal, too boring, or too scandalous. So, he always finds a way to introduce a fresh topic that he has cleverly saved for the moment. This always leads to a lot of engaging discussions and debates, and it puts everyone in a good mood.
Here is a little puzzle that he propounded the other night, and it is extraordinary how the company differed in their answers. He filled a wine-glass half full of wine, and another glass twice the size one-third full of wine. Then he filled up each glass with water and emptied the contents of both into a tumbler. "Now," he said, "what part of the mixture is wine and what part water?" Can you give the correct answer?
Here’s a little puzzle he posed the other night, and it’s amazing how everyone had different answers. He filled a wine glass halfway with wine and another glass, which was twice the size, one-third full with wine. Then he topped off each glass with water and poured the contents of both into a tumbler. "Now," he said, "what portion of the mixture is wine and what portion is water?" Can you provide the right answer?
Here is a curious little problem. A man had a ten-gallon keg full of wine and a jug. One day he drew off a jugful of wine and filled up the keg with water. Later on, when the wine and water had got thoroughly mixed, he drew off Pg 111another jugful and again filled up the keg with water. It was then found that the keg contained equal proportions of wine and water. Can you find from these facts the capacity of the jug?
Here is a curious little problem. A man had a ten-gallon keg full of wine and a jug. One day he poured out a jugful of wine and filled the keg up with water. Later on, when the wine and water had mixed thoroughly, he poured out another jugful and again filled the keg with water. It was then found that the keg contained equal amounts of wine and water. Can you figure out the capacity of the jug from these facts?
"Mrs. Spooner called this morning," said the honest grocer to his assistant. "She wants twenty pounds of tea at 2s. 4½d. per lb. Of course we have a good 2s. 6d. tea, a slightly inferior at 2s. 3d., and a cheap Indian at 1s. 9d., but she is very particular always about her prices."
"Mrs. Spooner called this morning," said the honest grocer to his assistant. "She wants twenty pounds of tea at 2s. 4½d. per lb. Of course, we have a good tea at 2s. 6d., a slightly inferior one at 2s. 3d., and a cheap Indian option at 1s. 9d., but she’s always very particular about her prices."
"What do you propose to do?" asked the innocent assistant.
"What do you plan to do?" asked the naive assistant.
"Do?" exclaimed the grocer. "Why, just mix up the three teas in different proportions so that the twenty pounds will work out fairly at the lady's price. Only don't put in more of the best tea than you can help, as we make less profit on that, and of course you will use only our complete pound packets. Don't do any weighing."
"Do?" exclaimed the grocer. "Just mix the three teas in different amounts so that the twenty pounds matches the lady's price. Just make sure not to use too much of the best tea, since we make less profit on that, and of course, only use our full pound packets. No weighing, please."
How was the poor fellow to mix the three teas? Could you have shown him how to do it?
How was the poor guy supposed to mix the three teas? Could you have shown him how to do it?
As we all know by experience, considerable ingenuity is often required in packing articles into a box if space is not to be unduly wasted. A man once told me that he had a large number of iron balls, all exactly two inches in diameter, and he wished to pack as many of these as possible into a rectangular box 249/10 inches long, 224/5 inches wide, and 14 inches deep. Now, what is the greatest number of the balls that he could pack into that box?
As we all know from experience, packing items into a box often requires a lot of creativity to avoid wasting space. A man once told me he had a lot of iron balls, each exactly two inches in diameter, and he wanted to fit as many of these as possible into a rectangular box that is 249/10 inches long, 224/5 inches wide, and 14 inches deep. So, what is the maximum number of balls he could fit into that box?
The editor of the Times newspaper was invited by a high Russian official to inspect the gold stored in reserve at St. Petersburg, in order that he might satisfy himself that it was not another "Humbert safe." He replied that it would be of no use whatever, for although the gold might appear to be there, he would be quite unable from a mere inspection to declare that what he saw was really gold. A correspondent of the Daily Mail thereupon took up the challenge, but, although he was greatly impressed by what he saw, he was compelled to confess his incompetence (without emptying and counting the contents of every box and sack, and assaying every piece of gold) to give any assurance on the subject. In presenting the following little puzzle, I wish it to be also understood that I do not guarantee the real existence of the gold, and the point is not at all material to our purpose. Moreover, if the reader says that gold is not usually "put up" in slabs of the dimensions that I give, I can only claim problematic licence.
The editor of the Times newspaper was invited by a senior Russian official to check out the gold reserves in St. Petersburg, so he could be sure it wasn't just another "Humbert safe." He responded that it wouldn’t be useful at all, since even if the gold looked like it was there, he wouldn’t be able to confirm from a simple visit that what he saw was actually gold. A reporter from the Daily Mail then took on the challenge, but even though he was really impressed by what he observed, he had to admit he couldn't guarantee anything (without emptying and counting every box and sack and testing every gold piece) about its authenticity. In presenting this little puzzle, I want it to be clear that I don’t guarantee that the gold actually exists, and whether it does or not isn’t crucial for our purpose. Also, if the reader claims that gold isn't typically stored in the sizes I mention, I can only appeal to a questionable liberty of expression.
Russian officials were engaged in packing 800 gold slabs, each measuring 12½ inches long, 11 inches wide, and 1 inch deep. What are the interior dimensions of a box of equal length and width, and necessary depth, that will exactly contain them without any space being left over? Not more than twelve slabs may be laid on edge, according to the rules of the government. It is an interesting little problem in packing, and not at all difficult.
Russian officials were busy packing 800 gold bars, each measuring 12½ inches long, 11 inches wide, and 1 inch deep. What are the interior dimensions of a box with the same length and width, and the necessary depth, that can hold them perfectly without any empty space? According to government rules, no more than twelve bars can be placed on their edge. It's an interesting little packing problem that's not very difficult at all.

Once upon a time there was an aged merchant of Bagdad who was much respected by all who knew him. He had three sons, and it was a rule of his life to treat them all exactly alike. Whenever one received a present, the other two were each given one of equal value. One day this worthy man fell sick and died, bequeathing all his possessions to his three sons in equal shares.
Once upon a time, there was an elderly merchant from Baghdad who was greatly respected by everyone who knew him. He had three sons, and he always treated them the same. Whenever one of them received a gift, the other two got something of equal value. One day, this good man became ill and passed away, leaving all his possessions to his three sons in equal portions.
The only difficulty that arose was over the stock of honey. There were exactly twenty-one barrels. The old man had left instructions that not only should every son receive an equal quantity of honey, but should receive exactly the same number of barrels, and that no honey should be transferred from barrel to barrel on account of the waste involved. Now, as seven of these barrels were full of honey, seven were half-full, and seven were empty, this was found to be quite a puzzle, especially as each brother objected to taking more than four barrels of, the same description—full, half-full, or empty. Can you show how they succeeded in making a correct division of the property?
The only issue that came up was about the supply of honey. There were exactly twenty-one barrels. The old man had made it clear that each son should get the same amount of honey, meaning they should all have the same number of barrels, and no honey should be moved from one barrel to another because of the waste that would cause. Now, since seven of these barrels were full of honey, seven were half-full, and seven were empty, this turned out to be quite a challenge, especially since each brother insisted on taking no more than four barrels that were all the same type—full, half-full, or empty. Can you explain how they managed to divide the property correctly?
CROSSING RIVER PROBLEMS
"My boat is on the shore."
BYRON.
"My boat is on the shore."
BYRON.
This is another mediæval class of puzzles. Probably the earliest example was by Abbot Alcuin, who was born in Yorkshire in 735 and died at Tours in 804. And everybody knows the story of the man with the wolf, goat, and basket of cabbages whose boat would only take one of the three at a time with the man himself. His difficulties arose from his being unable to leave the wolf alone with the goat, or the goat alone with the cabbages. These puzzles were considered by Tartaglia and Bachet, and have been later investigated by Lucas, De Fonteney, Delannoy, Tarry, and others. In the puzzles I give there will be found one or two new conditions which add to the complexity somewhat. I also include a pulley problem that practically involves the same principles.
This is another medieval class of puzzles. Probably the earliest example was by Abbot Alcuin, who was born in Yorkshire in 735 and died at Tours in 804. And everyone knows the story of the man with the wolf, goat, and basket of cabbages whose boat would only take one of the three at a time along with him. His troubles came from not being able to leave the wolf alone with the goat, or the goat alone with the cabbages. These puzzles were examined by Tartaglia and Bachet, and have been further studied by Lucas, De Fonteney, Delannoy, Tarry, and others. In the puzzles I present, you'll find one or two new conditions that add to the complexity a bit. I also include a pulley problem that essentially involves the same principles.
During a country ramble Mr. and Mrs. Softleigh found themselves in a pretty little dilemma. They had to cross a stream in a small boat which was capable of carrying only 150 lbs. weight. But Mr. Softleigh and his wife each weighed exactly 150 lbs., and each of their sons weighed 75 lbs. And then there was the dog, who could not be induced on any terms to swim. On the principle of "ladies first," they at once sent Mrs. Softleigh over; but this was a stupid oversight, because she had to come back again with the boat, so nothing was gained by that operation. How did they all succeed in getting across? The reader will find it much easier than the Softleigh family did, for their greatest enemy could not have truthfully called them a brilliant quartette—while the dog was a perfect fool.
During a country walk, Mr. and Mrs. Softleigh found themselves in a bit of a tricky situation. They needed to cross a stream in a small boat that could only hold 150 lbs. But both Mr. Softleigh and his wife weighed exactly 150 lbs., and each of their sons weighed 75 lbs. Plus, there was the dog, who wouldn’t swim under any circumstances. Following the "ladies first" principle, they sent Mrs. Softleigh across first; however, this was a poor choice since she had to return with the boat, meaning no progress was made. How did they all manage to get across? The reader will find it much easier than the Softleigh family did, as their greatest critic wouldn’t have honestly described them as a brilliant quartet—while the dog was just plain stupid.

Many years ago, in the days of the smuggler known as "Rob Roy of the West," a piratical band buried on the coast of South Devon a quantity of treasure which was, of course, abandoned by them in the usual inexplicable way. Some time afterwards its whereabouts was discovered by three countrymen, who visited the spot one night and divided the spoil between them, Giles taking treasure to the value of £800, Jasper £500 worth, and Timothy £300 worth. In returning they had to cross the river Axe at a point where they had left a small boat in readiness. Here, however, was a difficulty they had not anticipated. The boat would only carry two men, or one man and a sack, and they had so little confidence in one another that no person could be left alone on the land or in the boat with more than his share of the spoil, though two persons (being a check on each other) might be left with more than their shares. The puzzle is to show how they got over the river in the fewest possible crossings, taking their treasure with them. No Pg 113tricks, such as ropes, "flying bridges," currents, swimming, or similar dodges, may be employed.
Many years ago, during the time of the smuggler known as "Rob Roy of the West," a group of pirates buried a treasure on the coast of South Devon, which they eventually abandoned in their usual mysterious way. Later, three locals discovered its location and one night they went to the site and divided the loot among themselves, with Giles taking treasure worth £800, Jasper taking £500, and Timothy taking £300. On their way back, they needed to cross the river Axe at a spot where they had left a small boat ready to use. However, they faced an unexpected challenge. The boat could only hold two people, or one person and a sack, and they trusted each other so little that no one could be left alone on land or in the boat with more than their fair share of the treasure, although two people (acting as a check on each other) could stay together with more than their portions. The challenge is to figure out how they could cross the river using the fewest possible trips while taking their treasure with them. No tricks, like ropes, "flying bridges," currents, swimming, or similar methods, are allowed.
During certain local floods five married couples found themselves surrounded by water, and had to escape from their unpleasant position in a boat that would only hold three persons at a time. Every husband was so jealous that he would not allow his wife to be in the boat or on either bank with another man (or with other men) unless he was himself present. Show the quickest way of getting these five men and their wives across into safety.
During some local floods, five married couples found themselves trapped by rising water and needed to escape in a boat that could only carry three people at a time. Each husband was so jealous that he wouldn’t let his wife be in the boat or on either riverbank with another man unless he was there, too. Show the fastest way to get these five men
Call the men A, B, C, D, E, and their respective wives a, b, c, d, e. To go over and return counts as two crossings. No tricks such as ropes, swimming, currents, etc., are permitted.
Call the men A, B, C, D, E, and their respective wives a, b, c, d, e. Going over and coming back counts as two crossings. No tricks like ropes, swimming, currents, etc., are allowed.
Colonel B—— was a widower of a very taciturn disposition. His treatment of his four daughters was unusually severe, almost cruel, and they not unnaturally felt disposed to resent it. Being charming girls with every virtue and many accomplishments, it is not surprising that each had a fond admirer. But the father forbade the young men to call at his house, intercepted all letters, and placed his daughters under stricter supervision than ever. But love, which scorns locks and keys and garden walls, was equal to the occasion, and the four youths conspired together and planned a general elopement.
Colonel B—— was a widower who was very quiet and reserved. He treated his four daughters quite harshly, almost cruelly, and it’s no wonder they resented him for it. Being charming girls with many virtues and skills, it’s not surprising that each one had a suitor. But their father banned the young men from visiting, intercepted all their letters, and kept an even closer watch on his daughters. However, love doesn’t care about locks, keys, or garden walls, and the four young men teamed up and plotted a group getaway.
At the foot of the tennis lawn at the bottom of the garden ran the silver Thames, and one night, after the four girls had been safely conducted from a dormitory window to terra firma, they all crept softly down to the bank of the river, where a small boat belonging to the Colonel was moored. With this they proposed to cross to the opposite side and make their way to a lane where conveyances were waiting to carry them in their flight. Alas! here at the water's brink their difficulties already began.
At the bottom of the garden, by the tennis court, flowed the silver Thames, and one night, after the four girls had safely climbed down from a dormitory window to solid ground, they quietly made their way to the riverbank, where a small boat belonging to the Colonel was tied up. They planned to use it to cross to the other side and get to a lane where rides were waiting to take them away. Unfortunately, their troubles started right there at the water's edge.
The young men were so extremely jealous that not one of them would allow his prospective bride to remain at any time in the company of another man, or men, unless he himself were present also. Now, the boat would only hold two persons, though it could, of course, be rowed by one, and it seemed impossible that the four couples would ever get across. But midway in the stream was a small island, and this seemed to present a way out of the difficulty, because a person or persons could be left there while the boat was rowed back or to the opposite shore. If they had been prepared for their difficulty they could have easily worked out a solution to the little poser at any other time. But they were now so hurried and excited in their flight that the confusion they soon got into was exceedingly amusing—or would have been to any one except themselves.
The young men were so incredibly jealous that none of them would let their future bride spend any time with another man, unless he was there too. The boat could only hold two people, even though one person could row it, and it seemed impossible for the four couples to get across. But there was a small island in the middle of the stream, which offered a way out of the situation because someone could be left there while the boat went back or to the other shore. If they had been prepared for this problem, they could have easily figured out a solution at any other time. But they were now so rushed and excited in their escape that the confusion they got into was really funny—or would have been to anyone except themselves.
As a consequence they took twice as long and crossed the river twice as often as was really necessary. Meanwhile, the Colonel, who was a very light sleeper, thought he heard a splash of oars. He quickly raised the alarm among his household, and the young ladies were found to be missing. Somebody was sent to the police-station, and a number of officers soon aided in the pursuit of the fugitives, who, in consequence of that delay in crossing the river, were quickly overtaken. The four girls returned sadly to their homes, and afterwards broke off their engagements in disgust.
As a result, they took twice as long and crossed the river twice as often as necessary. Meanwhile, the Colonel, who was a very light sleeper, thought he heard the sound of oars. He quickly raised the alarm among his household, and it turned out the young ladies were missing. Someone was sent to the police station, and several officers soon joined in the search for the fugitives, who were quickly caught due to the delay in crossing the river. The four girls returned home sadly and later ended their engagements in frustration.
For a considerable time it was a mystery how the party of eight managed to cross the river in that little boat without any girl being ever left with a man, unless her betrothed was also present. The favourite method is to take eight counters or pieces of cardboard and mark them A, B, C, D, a, b, c, d, to represent the four men and their prospective brides, and carry them from one side of a table to the other in a matchbox (to represent the boat), a penny being placed in the middle of the table as the island.
For a long time, it was a mystery how the group of eight managed to cross the river in that small boat without leaving any girl alone with a man unless her fiancé was also there. The preferred method is to take eight tokens or pieces of cardboard and label them A, B, C, D, a, b, c, d to represent the four men and their future brides, then move them from one side of a table to the other in a matchbox (to stand in for the boat), placing a penny in the center of the table as the island.
Readers are now asked to find the quickest method of getting the party across the river. How many passages are necessary from land to land? By "land" is understood either shore or island. Though the boat would not necessarily call at the island every time of crossing, the possibility of its doing so must be provided for. For example, it would not do for a man to be alone in the boat (though it were understood that he intended merely to cross from one bank to the opposite one) if there happened to be a girl alone on the island other than the one to whom he was engaged.
Readers are now asked to find the fastest way to get the party across the river. How many trips are needed from one side to the other? By "side," we mean either shore or island. Although the boat wouldn't necessarily stop at the island every time it crosses, we need to account for the possibility. For instance, it wouldn't be appropriate for a man to be alone in the boat (even if it was understood that he only intended to cross from one bank to the other) if there happened to be a girl alone on the island who isn't the one he’s engaged to.
The ingenious manner in which a box of treasure, consisting principally of jewels and precious stones, was stolen from Gloomhurst Castle has been handed down as a tradition in the De Gourney family. The thieves consisted of a man, a youth, and a small boy, whose only mode of escape with the box of treasure was by means of a high window. Outside the window was fixed a pulley, over which ran a rope with a basket at each end. When one basket was on the ground the other was at the window. The rope was so disposed that the persons in the basket could neither help themselves by means of it nor receive help from others. In short, the only way the baskets could be used was by placing a heavier weight in one than in the other.
The clever way a box of treasure, mainly filled with jewels and precious stones, was stolen from Gloomhurst Castle has been passed down as a story in the De Gourney family. The thieves included a man, a young man, and a small boy, and their only escape route with the treasure was through a high window. Outside the window was a pulley with a rope running through it, holding a basket at each end. When one basket was on the ground, the other was at the window. The rope was set up in such a way that the people in the baskets couldn’t help themselves or get help from others. Basically, the only way to use the baskets was to place a heavier weight in one than in the other.
Now, the man weighed 195 lbs., the youth 105 lbs., the boy 90 lbs., and the box of treasure 75 lbs. The weight in the descending basket could not exceed that in the other by more than 15 lbs. without causing a descent so rapid as to be most dangerous to a human being, though it would not injure the stolen property. Only two persons, or one person and the treasure, could be placed in the same basket at one time. How did they all manage to escape and take the box of treasure with them?
Now, the man weighed 195 lbs., the youth 105 lbs., the boy 90 lbs., and the box of treasure 75 lbs. The weight in the descending basket couldn't be more than 15 lbs. heavier than in the other one without making the descent so fast that it would be dangerous for a person, although it wouldn’t harm the stolen property. Only two people, or one person and the treasure, could fit in the same basket at one time. How did they all manage to escape and take the box of treasure with them?
PROBLEMS CONCERNING GAMES.
"The little pleasure of the game."
MATTHEW PRIOR.
"The small joy of the game."
MATTHEW PRIOR.
Every game lends itself to the propounding of a variety of puzzles. They can be made, as we have seen, out of the chessboard and the peculiar moves of the chess pieces. I will now give just a few examples of puzzles with playing cards and dominoes, and also go out of doors and consider one or two little posers in the cricket field, at the football match, and the horse race and motor-car race.
Every game presents opportunities for all kinds of puzzles. We've already looked at how we can create them using the chessboard and the unique movements of chess pieces. Now, I'll share a few examples of puzzles involving playing cards and dominoes, and I'll also step outside to consider a couple of challenges in cricket, football matches, as well as horse races and car races.

It will be seen that I have played six dominoes, in the illustration, in accordance with the ordinary rules of the game, 4 against 4, 1 against 1, and so on, and yet the sum of the spots on the successive dominoes, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, are in arithmetical progression; that is, the numbers taken in order have a common difference of 1. In how many different ways may we play six dominoes, from an ordinary box of twenty-eight, so that the numbers on them may lie in arithmetical progression? We must always play from left to right, and numbers in decreasing arithmetical progression (such as 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4) are not admissible.
You’ll notice that I played six dominoes in the illustration, following the regular rules of the game, 4 against 4, 1 against 1, and so on, yet the total spots on the dominoes—4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9—are in arithmetic progression; that is, the numbers in order have a common difference of 1. How many different ways can we play six dominoes from a standard set of twenty-eight, such that the numbers on them are in arithmetic progression? We must always play from left to right, and numbers in decreasing arithmetic progression (like 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4) are not allowed.

Here is a new little puzzle that is not difficult, but will probably be found entertaining by my readers. It will be seen that the five dominoes are so arranged in proper sequence (that is, with 1 against 1, 2 against 2, and so on), that the total number of pips on the two end dominoes is five, and the sum of the pips on the three dominoes in the middle is also five. There are just three other arrangements giving five for the additions. They are: —
Here’s a new little puzzle that isn’t hard, but my readers will likely find it entertaining. You’ll see that the five dominoes are arranged in the correct order (with 1 touching 1, 2 touching 2, and so on), so that the total number of pips on the two end dominoes is five, and the sum of the pips on the three middle dominoes is also five. There are just three other arrangements that add up to five. They are: —
(1—0) | (0—0) | (0—2) | (2—1) | (1—3) |
(4—0) | (0—0) | (0—2) | (2—1) | (1—0) |
(2—0) | (0—0) | (0—1) | (1—3) | (3—0) |
Now, how many similar arrangements are there of five dominoes that shall give six instead of five in the two additions?
Now, how many similar arrangements of five dominoes can result in six instead of five in the two additions?

It will be seen in the illustration that the full set of twenty-eight dominoes is arranged in the form of a square frame, with 6 against 6, 2 against 2, blank against blank, and so on, as in the game. It will be found that the pips in the top row and left-hand column both add up 44. The pips in the other two sides sum to 59 and 32 respectively. The puzzle is to rearrange the dominoes in the same form so that all of the four sides shall sum to 44. Remember that the dominoes must be correctly placed one against another as in the game.
It can be seen in the illustration that the complete set of twenty-eight dominoes is arranged in a square frame, with 6 facing 6, 2 facing 2, blank facing blank, and so on, as in the game. You'll find that the pips in the top row and the left column both add up to 44. The pips in the other two sides total 59 and 32 respectively. The challenge is to rearrange the dominoes in the same format so that all four sides add up to 44. Keep in mind that the dominoes must be correctly placed next to each other as they are in the game.
In the illustration we have a frame constructed from the ten playing cards, ace to ten of diamonds. The children who made it wanted the pips on all four sides to add up alike, but they failed in their attempt and gave it up as impossible. It will be seen that the pips in the Pg 115top row, the bottom row, and the left-hand side all add up 14, but the right-hand side sums to 23. Now, what they were trying to do is quite possible. Can you rearrange the ten cards in the same formation so that all four sides shall add up alike? Of course they need not add up 14, but any number you choose to select.
In the illustration, we have a frame made from ten playing cards, from ace to ten of diamonds. The kids who created it wanted the pips on all four sides to total the same, but they couldn’t manage it and gave up, thinking it was impossible. It’s clear that the pips in the Pg 115top row, the bottom row, and the left side all add up to 14, while the right side totals 23. However, what they were trying to do is definitely possible. Can you rearrange the ten cards in the same setup so that all four sides add up equally? They don’t have to total 14, but can be any number you choose.


In this case we use only nine cards—the ace to nine of diamonds. The puzzle is to arrange them in the form of a cross, exactly in the way shown in the illustration, so that the pips in the vertical bar and in the horizontal bar add up alike. In the example given it will be found that both directions add up 23. What I want to know is, how many different ways are there of rearranging the cards in order to bring about this result? It will be seen that, without affecting the solution, we may exchange the 5 with the 6, the 5 with the 7, the 8 with the 3, and so on. Also we may make the horizontal and the vertical bars change places. But such obvious manipulations as these are not to be regarded as different solutions. They are all mere variations of one fundamental solution. Now, how many of these fundamentally different solutions are there? The pips need not, of course, always add up 23.
In this case, we use just nine cards—the ace to nine of diamonds. The challenge is to arrange them in the shape of a cross, exactly as shown in the illustration, so that the numbers in the vertical and horizontal bars add up the same. In the example provided, both directions total 23. What I want to know is how many different ways there are to rearrange the cards to achieve this result. You'll see that, without changing the solution, we can swap the 5 with the 6, the 5 with the 7, the 8 with the 3, and so on. We can also switch the horizontal and vertical bars. However, these obvious adjustments aren’t considered different solutions; they’re just variations of a single fundamental solution. So, how many of these fundamentally different solutions are there? The numbers don't always have to add up to 23, of course.

An entertaining little puzzle with cards is to take the nine cards of a suit, from ace to nine inclusive, and arrange them in the form of the letter "T," as shown in the illustration, so that the pips in the horizontal line shall count the same as those in the column. In the example given they add up twenty-three both ways. Now, it is quite easy to get a single correct arrangement. The puzzle is to discover in just how many different ways it may be done. Though the number is high, the solution is not really difficult if we attack the puzzle in the right manner. The reverse way obtained by reflecting the illustration in a mirror we will not count as different, but all other changes in the relative positions of the cards will here count. How many different ways are there?
An entertaining little puzzle with cards is to take the nine cards of a suit, from ace to nine, and arrange them in the shape of the letter "T," as shown in the illustration, so that the pips in the horizontal line equal those in the column. In the example provided, they total twenty-three in both directions. Now, it's quite easy to find one correct arrangement. The challenge is to figure out how many different ways it can be done. Although the number is high, finding the solution isn't too hard if we approach the puzzle correctly. The reverse arrangement obtained by reflecting the illustration in a mirror will not be counted as different, but all other changes in the relative positions of the cards will be counted. How many different ways are there?
Here you pick out the nine cards, ace to nine of diamonds, and arrange them in the form of a triangle, exactly as shown in the illustration, so that the pips add up the same on the three sides. In the example given it will be seen that they sum to 20 on each side, but the particular number is of no importance so long as it is the same on all three sides. The puzzle Pg 116is to find out in just how many different ways this can be done.
Here, you select the nine cards, ace to nine of diamonds, and arrange them in a triangle, just like in the illustration, so that the pips add up the same on all three sides. In the example provided, you can see that they total 20 on each side, but the specific number doesn't matter as long as it's the same on all three sides. The challenge Pg 116 is to determine how many different ways this can be accomplished.
If you simply turn the cards round so that one of the other two sides is nearest to you this will not count as different, for the order will be the same. Also, if you make the 4, 9, 5 change places with the 7, 3, 8, and at the same time exchange the 1 and the 6, it will not be different. But if you only change the 1 and the 6 it will be different, because the order round the triangle is not the same. This explanation will prevent any doubt arising as to the conditions.
If you just turn the cards around so that one of the other two sides is facing you, it won't count as different since the order stays the same. Also, if you swap the 4, 9, and 5 with the 7, 3, and 8, while also exchanging the 1 and the 6, it won't be different either. However, if you only swap the 1 and the 6, it will be different because the order around the triangle changes. This explanation will clear up any confusion about the conditions.

The idea for this came to me when considering the game of Patience that I gave in the Strand Magazine for December, 1910, which has been reprinted in Ernest Bergholt's Second Book of Patience Games, under the new name of "King Albert."
The idea for this came to me when thinking about the game of Patience that I contributed to the Strand Magazine for December 1910, which has been reprinted in Ernest Bergholt's Second Book of Patience Games, now called "King Albert."
Make two piles of cards as follows: 9 D, 8 S, 7 D, 6 S, 5 D, 4 S, 3 D, 2 S, 1 D, and 9 H, 8 C, 7 H, 6 C, 5 H, 4 C, 3 H, 2 C, 1 H, with the 9 of diamonds at the bottom of one pile and the 9 of hearts at the bottom of the other. The point is to exchange the spades with the clubs, so that the diamonds and clubs are still in numerical order in one pile and the hearts and spades in the other. There are four vacant spaces in addition to the two spaces occupied by the piles, and any card may be laid on a space, but a card can only be laid on another of the next higher value—an ace on a two, a two on a three, and so on. Patience is required to discover the shortest way of doing this. When there are four vacant spaces you can pile four cards in seven moves, with only three spaces you can pile them in nine moves, and with two spaces you cannot pile more than two cards. When you have a grasp of these and similar facts you will be able to remove a number of cards bodily and write down 7, 9, or whatever the number of moves may be. The gradual shortening of play is fascinating, and first attempts are surprisingly lengthy.
Make two piles of cards like this: 9 D, 8 S, 7 D, 6 S, 5 D, 4 S, 3 D, 2 S, 1 D, and 9 H, 8 C, 7 H, 6 C, 5 H, 4 C, 3 H, 2 C, 1 H, with the 9 of diamonds at the bottom of one pile and the 9 of hearts at the bottom of the other. The goal is to swap the spades with the clubs, so that the diamonds and clubs stay in numerical order in one pile and the hearts and spades in the other. There are four empty spaces in addition to the two spaces taken by the piles, and any card can be placed on a space, but a card can only go on another card of the next higher value—an ace on a two, a two on a three, and so on. You need patience to figure out the quickest way to do this. With four empty spaces, you can stack four cards in seven moves; with only three spaces, you can stack them in nine moves, and with two spaces you can't stack more than two cards. Once you understand these and similar facts, you'll be able to remove several cards completely and note down 7, 9, or whatever the number of moves is. The gradual shortening of play is interesting, and the initial attempts take surprisingly long.

Here is a neat little trick with three dice. I ask you to throw the dice without my seeing them. Then I tell you to multiply the points of the first die by 2 and add 5; then multiply the result by 5 and add the points of the second die; then multiply the result by 10 and add the points of the third die. You then give me the total, and I can at once tell you the points thrown with the three dice. How do I do it? As an example, if you threw 1, 3, and 6, as in the illustration, the result you would give me would be 386, from which I could at once say what you had thrown.
Here’s a cool little trick using three dice. I’m going to ask you to roll the dice without letting me see them. Then, I’ll have you multiply the number on the first die by 2 and add 5; next, multiply that result by 5 and add the number on the second die; then multiply that result by 10 and add the number on the third die. You’ll tell me the total, and I’ll be able to instantly tell you the numbers you rolled on the three dice. How do I do it? For example, if you rolled 1, 3, and 6, the total you give me would be 386, and from that, I could immediately tell you what you rolled.
In a cricket match, Dingley Dell v. All Muggleton, the latter had the first innings. Mr. Dumkins and Mr. Podder were at the wickets, when the wary Dumkins made a splendid late cut, and Mr. Podder called on him to run. Four runs were apparently completed, but the vigilant umpires at each end called, "three short," making six short runs in all. What number did Mr. Dumkins score? When Dingley Dell took their turn at the wickets their champions were Mr. Luffey and Mr. Struggles. The latter made a magnificent off-drive, and invited his colleague to "come along," with the result that the observant spectators applauded them for what was supposed to have been three sharp runs. But the umpires declared that there had been two short runs at each end—four in all. To what extent, if any, did this manœuvre increase Mr. Struggles's total?
In a cricket match between Dingley Dell and All Muggleton, the latter team had the first innings. Mr. Dumkins and Mr. Podder were at the creases when the cautious Dumkins made a fantastic late cut, and Mr. Podder urged him to run. It seemed like they had completed four runs, but the alert umpires at each end called out, "three short," making it six short runs altogether. How many runs did Mr. Dumkins actually score? When Dingley Dell got their chance at bat, their players were Mr. Luffey and Mr. Struggles. Mr. Struggles hit a brilliant off-drive and urged his partner to "come along," which led the attentive spectators to cheer for what they thought were three quick runs. However, the umpires declared that there had been two short runs at each end—four in total. How did this situation affect Mr. Struggles’s score, if at all?
In the recent county match between Wessex and Nincomshire the former team were at the wickets all day, the last man being put out a few minutes before the time for drawing stumps. The play was so slow that most of the spectators were fast asleep, and, on being awakened by one of the officials clearing the ground, we learnt that two men had been put out leg-before-wicket for a combined score of 19 runs; four men were caught for a combined score or 17 runs; one man was run out for a duck's egg; and the others were all bowled for 3 runs each. There were no extras. We were not told which of the men was the captain, but he made exactly 15 more than the average of his team. What was the captain's score?
In the recent county match between Wessex and Nincomshire, the Wessex team was at bat all day, with the last player getting out just a few minutes before time was called. The game moved at such a slow pace that most of the spectators were fast asleep, and when one of the officials woke us up to clear the field, we found out that two players were out leg-before-wicket for a total of 19 runs; four players were caught for a total of 17 runs; one player was run out without scoring; and the rest were bowled out for 3 runs each. There were no extras. We weren’t told which player was the captain, but he scored exactly 15 runs more than the average score of his team. What was the captain's score?
"It is a glorious game!" an enthusiast was heard to exclaim. "At the close of last season, Pg 117of the footballers of my acquaintance four had broken their left arm, five had broken their right arm, two had the right arm sound, and three had sound left arms." Can you discover from that statement what is the smallest number of players that the speaker could be acquainted with?
"It’s an amazing game!" an enthusiast was heard to say. "At the end of last season, Pg 117 out of the footballers I know, four had broken their left arm, five had broken their right arm, two had their right arm fine, and three had their left arm fine." Can you figure out from that statement what the smallest number of players the speaker could know is?
It does not at all follow that there were as many as fourteen men, because, for example, two of the men who had broken the left arm might also be the two who had sound right arms.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that there were as many as fourteen men, because, for instance, two of the men with broken left arms might also be the same two with healthy right arms.
There are no morals in puzzles. When we are solving the old puzzle of the captain who, having to throw half his crew overboard in a storm, arranged to draw lots, but so placed the men that only the Turks were sacrificed, and all the Christians left on board, we do not stop to discuss the questionable morality of the proceeding. And when we are dealing with a measuring problem, in which certain thirsty pilgrims are to make an equitable division of a barrel of beer, we do not object that, as total abstainers, it is against our conscience to have anything to do with intoxicating liquor. Therefore I make no apology for introducing a puzzle that deals with betting.
There are no morals in puzzles. When we tackle the classic scenario of the captain who, in a storm, had to throw half his crew overboard and decided to draw lots, but arranged it so that only the Turks were sacrificed while all the Christians stayed on board, we don’t pause to discuss the questionable ethics of the situation. And when we face a measuring problem involving some thirsty pilgrims who need to fairly divide a barrel of beer, we don’t raise objections, claiming that as total abstainers, it goes against our principles to deal with alcohol. So, I won’t apologize for bringing in a puzzle that involves betting.
Three horses—Acorn, Bluebottle, and Capsule—start in a race. The odds are 4 to 1, Acorn; 3 to 1, Bluebottle; 2 to 1, Capsule. Now, how much must I invest on each horse in order to win £13, no matter which horse comes in first? Supposing, as an example, that I betted £5 on each horse. Then, if Acorn won, I should receive £20 (four times £5), and have to pay £5 each for the other two horses; thereby winning £10. But it will be found that if Bluebottle was first I should only win £5, and if Capsule won I should gain nothing and lose nothing. This will make the question perfectly clear to the novice, who, like myself, is not interested in the calling of the fraternity who profess to be engaged in the noble task of "improving the breed of horses."
Three horses—Acorn, Bluebottle, and Capsule—are racing. The odds are 4 to 1 for Acorn, 3 to 1 for Bluebottle, and 2 to 1 for Capsule. So, how much should I bet on each horse to win £13, no matter which one finishes first? Let’s say I bet £5 on each horse. If Acorn wins, I’d get £20 (four times £5) but I'd lose the £5 bets on the other two horses, ending up with a £10 profit. However, if Bluebottle comes in first, I’d only win £5, and if Capsule wins, I wouldn’t gain or lose anything. This explanation should make things clear for someone new to this, like me, who isn’t concerned with the claims of those who say they are dedicated to “improving the breed of horses.”
Sometimes a quite simple statement of fact, if worded in an unfamiliar manner, will cause considerable perplexity. Here is an example, and it will doubtless puzzle some of my more youthful readers just a little. I happened to be at a motor-car race at Brooklands, when one spectator said to another, while a number of cars were whirling round and round the circular track:—
Sometimes a simple statement of fact, if phrased in an unusual way, can create a lot of confusion. Here's an example that will likely confuse some of my younger readers a bit. I was at a car race at Brooklands when one spectator said to another, as several cars were racing around the circular track:—
"There's Gogglesmith—that man in the white car!"
"That's Gogglesmith—the guy in the white car!"
"Yes, I see," was the reply; "but how many cars are running in this race?"
"Yeah, I get it," was the reply; "but how many cars are in this race?"
Then came this curious rejoinder:—
Then came this strange reply:—
"One-third of the cars in front of Gogglesmith added to three-quarters of those behind him will give you the answer."
"One-third of the cars in front of Gogglesmith combined with three-quarters of those behind him will give you the answer."
Now, can you tell how many cars were running in the race?
Now, can you tell how many cars were in the race?
PUZZLE GAMES.
"He that is beaten may be said
To lie in honour's truckle bed."
HUDIBRAS.
"He who is defeated may be said
To lie in the bed of honor."
HUDIBRAS.
It may be said generally that a game is a contest of skill for two or more persons, into which we enter either for amusement or to win a prize. A puzzle is something to be done or solved by the individual. For example, if it were possible for us so to master the complexities of the game of chess that we could be assured of always winning with the first or second move, as the case might be, or of always drawing, then it would cease to be a game and would become a puzzle. Of course among the young and uninformed, when the correct winning play is not understood, a puzzle may well make a very good game. Thus there is no doubt children will continue to play "Noughts and Crosses," though I have shown (No. 109, "Canterbury Puzzles") that between two players who both thoroughly understand the play, every game should be drawn. Neither player could ever win except through the blundering of his opponent. But I am writing from the point of view of the student of these things.
In general, a game can be described as a contest of skill for two or more people, entered for either fun or to win a prize. A puzzle, on the other hand, is something that an individual works on or tries to solve. For instance, if we could master the complexities of chess to the point where we were guaranteed to win with the first or second move—or always tie—it would stop being a game and become a puzzle. Of course, among younger or less informed players, when the best winning move isn't understood, a puzzle can still make for a really good game. So, it's no surprise that children will keep playing "Tic-Tac-Toe," even though I've shown (No. 109, "Canterbury Puzzles") that if two players fully understand the game, every match should end in a tie. Neither player can win unless their opponent makes a mistake. But I'm discussing this from the perspective of someone studying the topic.
The examples that I give in this class are apparently games, but, since I show in every case how one player may win if he only play correctly, they are in reality puzzles. Their interest, therefore, lies in attempting to discover the leading method of play.
The examples I use in this class may seem like games, but since I demonstrate in each case how one player can win if they play correctly, they are actually puzzles. Their appeal, then, is in trying to figure out the best strategy to play.
Here is an interesting little puzzle game that I used to play with an acquaintance on the beach at Slocomb-on-Sea. Two players place an odd number of pebbles, we will say fifteen, between them. Then each takes in turn one, two, or three pebbles (as he chooses), and the winner is the one who gets the odd number. Thus, if you get seven and your opponent eight, you win. If you get six and he gets nine, he wins. Ought the first or second player to win, and how? When you have settled the question with fifteen pebbles try again with, say, thirteen.
Here’s a fun little puzzle game I used to play with a friend on the beach at Slocomb-on-Sea. Two players put an odd number of pebbles, let’s say fifteen, between them. Then each player takes turns picking one, two, or three pebbles (whatever they prefer), and the winner is the one who ends up with the odd number. So, if you have seven and your opponent has eight, you win. If you have six and he has nine, he wins. Should the first or second player win, and how? After you figure that out with fifteen pebbles, try again with, say, thirteen.
This is a puzzle game for two players. Each player has a single rook. The first player places his rook on any square of the board that he may choose to select, and then the second player does the same. They now play in turn, the point of each play being to capture the opponent's rook. But in this game you cannot play through a line of attack without being captured. That is to say, if in the diagram it is Black's turn to Pg 118play, he cannot move his rook to his king's knight's square, or to his king's rook's square, because he would enter the "line of fire" when passing his king's bishop's square. For the same reason he cannot move to his queen's rook's seventh or eighth squares. Now, the game can never end in a draw. Sooner or later one of the rooks must fall, unless, of course, both players commit the absurdity of not trying to win. The trick of winning is ridiculously simple when you know it. Can you solve the puzzle?
This is a puzzle game for two players. Each player has one rook. The first player places their rook on any square of the board they choose, and then the second player does the same. They take turns, with the goal being to capture the opponent's rook. However, in this game, you can't move through a line of attack without getting captured. In other words, if it’s Black's turn to Pg 118play, they can't move their rook to their king's knight's square or their king's rook's square because they would enter the "line of fire" when passing their king's bishop's square. For the same reason, they can’t move to their queen's rook's seventh or eighth squares. The game can never end in a draw. Sooner or later, one of the rooks will be captured, unless, of course, both players make the ridiculous choice not to try to win. The trick to winning is surprisingly simple once you know it. Can you solve the puzzle?


This variation of the last puzzle is also played by two persons. One puts a counter on No. 6, and the other puts one on No. 55, and they play alternately by removing the counter to any other number in a line. If your opponent moves at any time on to one of the lines you occupy, or even crosses one of your lines, you immediately capture him and win. We will take an illustrative game.
This version of the last puzzle is also played by two people. One player puts a token on No. 6, and the other places one on No. 55. They take turns moving their token to any other number in a line. If your opponent ever lands on one of the lines you occupy or crosses one of your lines, you immediately capture them and win. Let's look at an example game.
A moves from 55 to 52; B moves from 6 to 13; A advances to 23; B goes to 15; A retreats to 26; B retreats to 13; A advances to 21; B retreats to 2; A advances to 7; B goes to 3; A moves to 6; B must now go to 4; A establishes himself at 11, and B must be captured next move because he is compelled to cross a line on which A stands. Play this over and you will understand the game directly. Now, the puzzle part of the game is this: Which player should win, and how many moves are necessary?
A moves from 55 to 52; B moves from 6 to 13; A moves to 23; B goes to 15; A retreats to 26; B retreats to 13; A moves to 21; B retreats to 2; A moves to 7; B goes to 3; A moves to 6; B has to go to 4; A positions himself at 11, and B will be captured on the next move because he's forced to cross a line where A is standing. Replay this, and you'll understand the game better. Now, the tricky part of the game is this: Which player should win, and how many moves are needed?

Here is another puzzle game. One player, representing the British general, places a counter at B, and the other player, representing the enemy, places his counter at E. The Britisher makes the first advance along one of the roads to the next town, then the enemy moves to one of his nearest towns, and so on in turns, until the British general gets into the same town as the enemy and captures him. Although each must always move along a road to the next town only, and the second player may do his utmost to avoid capture, the British general (as we should suppose, from the analogy of real life) must infallibly win. But how? That is the question.
Here’s another puzzle game. One player, acting as the British general, places a piece at B, and the other player, representing the enemy, places their piece at E. The British player makes the first move along one of the roads to the next town, then the enemy moves to one of their nearest towns, and they continue to take turns until the British general lands in the same town as the enemy and captures them. Even though both players must move along a road to the next town only, and the second player can try their best to avoid being captured, the British general (as we would expect, based on real-life situations) will definitely win. But how? That’s the question.
Here is a little game that is childishly simple in its conditions. But it is well worth investigation.
Here’s a simple game that’s easy to understand. But it’s definitely worth looking into.
Mr. Stubbs pulled a small table between himself and his friend, Mr. Wilson, and took a box of matches, from which he counted out thirty.
Mr. Stubbs pulled a small table between himself and his friend, Mr. Wilson, and took a box of matches, counting out thirty.
"Here are thirty matches," he said. "I Pg 119divide them into three unequal heaps. Let me see. We have 14, 11, and 5, as it happens. Now, the two players draw alternately any number from any one heap, and he who draws the last match loses the game. That's all! I will play with you, Wilson. I have formed the heaps, so you have the first draw."
"Here are thirty matches," he said. "I Pg 119divided them into three uneven piles. Let's see. We have 14, 11, and 5, it turns out. Now, the two players take turns drawing any number from any one pile, and whoever draws the last match loses the game. That's it! I’ll play with you, Wilson. I've set up the piles, so you get to draw first."
"As I can draw any number," Mr. Wilson said, "suppose I exhibit my usual moderation and take all the 14 heap."
"As I can draw any number," Mr. Wilson said, "let’s say I show my usual moderation and take all 14 from the pile."
"That is the worst you could do, for it loses right away. I take 6 from the 11, leaving two equal heaps of 5, and to leave two equal heaps is a certain win (with the single exception of 1, 1), because whatever you do in one heap I can repeat in the other. If you leave 4 in one heap, I leave 4 in the other. If you then leave 2 in one heap, I leave 2 in the other. If you leave only 1 in one heap, then I take all the other heap. If you take all one heap, I take all but one in the other. No, you must never leave two heaps, unless they are equal heaps and more than 1, 1. Let's begin again."
"That's the worst move you could make because it loses immediately. I take 6 from the 11, leaving two equal piles of 5, and leaving two equal piles guarantees a win (except for the single case of 1 and 1), because whatever you do with one pile, I can do the same with the other. If you leave 4 in one pile, I leave 4 in the other. If you then leave 2 in one pile, I leave 2 in the other. If you leave just 1 in one pile, I take the entire other pile. If you take all from one pile, I take everything except one from the other. No, you should never leave two piles unless they're equal and more than 1 and 1. Let's start over."
"Very well, then," said Mr. Wilson. "I will take 6 from the 14, and leave you 8, 11, 5."
"Alright then," said Mr. Wilson. "I'll take 6 from the 14, and leave you with 8, 11, 5."
Mr. Stubbs then left 8, 11, 3; Mr. Wilson, 8, 5, 3; Mr. Stubbs, 6, 5, 3; Mr. Wilson,4, 5, 3; Mr. Stubbs, 4, 5, 1; Mr. Wilson, 4, 3, 1; Mr. Stubbs, 2, 3, 1; Mr. Wilson, 2, 1, 1; which Mr. Stubbs reduced to 1, 1, 1.
Mr. Stubbs then played 8, 11, 3; Mr. Wilson, 8, 5, 3; Mr. Stubbs, 6, 5, 3; Mr. Wilson, 4, 5, 3; Mr. Stubbs, 4, 5, 1; Mr. Wilson, 4, 3, 1; Mr. Stubbs, 2, 3, 1; Mr. Wilson, 2, 1, 1; which Mr. Stubbs simplified to 1, 1, 1.
"It is now quite clear that I must win," said Mr. Stubbs, because you must take 1, and then I take 1, leaving you the last match. You never had a chance. There are just thirteen different ways in which the matches may be grouped at the start for a certain win. In fact, the groups selected, 14, 11, 5, are a certain win, because for whatever your opponent may play there is another winning group you can secure, and so on and on down to the last match."
"It’s pretty obvious that I have to win," Mr. Stubbs said, "because you take 1, and then I take 1, which leaves you with the last match. You never stood a chance. There are only thirteen different ways to arrange the matches at the beginning for a guaranteed win. In fact, the groups chosen, 14, 11, 5, ensure a win because no matter what your opponent does, there’s always another group that lets you win, and it just continues like that until the last match."
It is said that the inhabitants of Montenegro have a little dice game that is both ingenious and well worth investigation. The two players first select two different pairs of odd numbers (always higher than 3) and then alternately toss three dice. Whichever first throws the dice so that they add up to one of his selected numbers wins. If they are both successful in two successive throws it is a draw and they try again. For example, one player may select 7 and 15 and the other 5 and 13. Then if the first player throws so that the three dice add up 7 or 15 he wins, unless the second man gets either 5 or 13 on his throw.
It’s said that the people of Montenegro have a clever little dice game that’s definitely worth checking out. Two players start by picking two different pairs of odd numbers (always greater than 3) and then take turns rolling three dice. The first player to roll a combination that adds up to one of their chosen numbers wins. If both players succeed in two consecutive rolls, it’s a tie and they go again. For example, one player might choose 7 and 15, while the other picks 5 and 13. If the first player rolls a total of 7 or 15, they win, unless the second player rolls a total of 5 or 13.
The puzzle is to discover which two pairs of numbers should be selected in order to give both players an exactly even chance.
The challenge is to figure out which two pairs of numbers should be chosen to give both players an equal shot at winning.
I once propounded the following puzzle in a London club, and for a considerable period it absorbed the attention of the members. They could make nothing of it, and considered it quite impossible of solution. And yet, as I shall show, the answer is remarkably simple.
I once presented the following puzzle at a London club, and for quite a while, it captured the members' attention. They couldn't figure it out and thought it was completely unsolvable. Yet, as I will demonstrate, the answer is surprisingly simple.
Two men are seated at a square-topped table. One places an ordinary cigar (flat at one end, pointed at the other) on the table, then the other does the same, and so on alternately, a condition being that no cigar shall touch another. Which player should succeed in placing the last cigar, assuming that they each will play in the best possible manner? The size of the table top and the size of the cigar are not given, but in order to exclude the ridiculous answer that the table might be so diminutive as only to take one cigar, we will say that the table must not be less than 2 feet square and the cigar not more than 4½ inches long. With those restrictions you may take any dimensions you like. Of course we assume that all the cigars are exactly alike in every respect. Should the first player, or the second player, win?
Two men are sitting at a square table. One puts an ordinary cigar (flat on one end, pointed on the other) on the table, then the other does the same, and they alternate, making sure that no cigar touches another. Which player will manage to place the last cigar, assuming both play perfectly? The size of the tabletop and the size of the cigar aren’t specified, but to avoid the silly conclusion that the table could be tiny enough to hold only one cigar, we’ll say the table has to be at least 2 feet square and the cigar no longer than 4½ inches. With these limits, you can choose any dimensions you want. We also assume that all the cigars are identical in every way. Should the first player or the second player win?
MAGIC SQUARE PROBLEMS.
"By magic numbers."
CONGREVE, The Mourning Bride.
"By magical numbers."
CONGREVE, The Mourning Bride.
This is a very ancient branch of mathematical puzzledom, and it has an immense, though scattered, literature of its own. In their simple form of consecutive whole numbers arranged in a square so that every column, every row, and each of the two long diagonals shall add up alike, these magic squares offer three main lines of investigation: Construction, Enumeration, and Classification. Of recent years many ingenious methods have been devised for the construction of magics, and the law of their formation is so well understood that all the ancient mystery has evaporated and there is no longer any difficulty in making squares of any dimensions. Almost the last word has been said on this subject. The question of the enumeration of all the possible squares of a given order stands just where it did over two hundred years ago. Everybody knows that there is only one solution for the third order, three cells by three; and Frénicle published in 1693 diagrams of all the arrangements of the fourth order—880 in number—and his results have been verified over and over again. I may here refer to the general solution for this order, for numbers not necessarily consecutive, by E. Bergholt in Nature, May 26, 1910, as it is of the greatest importance to students of this subject. The enumeration of the examples of any higher order is a completely unsolved problem.
This is a very old branch of mathematical puzzling, and it has a huge, though scattered, body of literature. In their basic form of consecutive whole numbers arranged in a square so that every column, every row, and each of the two long diagonals add up to the same total, these magic squares present three main areas of study: Construction, Enumeration, and Classification. In recent years, many clever methods have been created for constructing these magic squares, and the principles behind their formation are so well grasped that all the ancient mystery has faded away. There’s now no difficulty in making squares of any size. Almost everything that can be said on this subject has been said. The question of counting all the possible squares of a given order remains unchanged from over two hundred years ago. Everyone knows there’s only one solution for the third order, which is three cells by three; and Frénicle published diagrams of all the arrangements for the fourth order—880 in total—in 1693, and his findings have been confirmed repeatedly. I should also mention the general solution for this order, with numbers not necessarily consecutive, by E. Bergholt in Nature, May 26, 1910, as it is crucial for students of this subject. The enumeration of examples of any higher order is still a completely unsolved problem.
As to classification, it is largely a matter of individual taste—perhaps an æsthetic question, for there is beauty in the law and order of numbers. A man once said that he divided the human race into two great classes: those who take snuff and those who do not. I am not Pg 120sure that some of our classifications of magic squares are not almost as valueless. However, lovers of these things seem somewhat agreed that Nasik magic squares (so named by Mr. Frost, a student of them, after the town in India where he lived, and also called Diabolique and Pandiagonal) and Associated magic squares are of special interest, so I will just explain what these are for the benefit of the novice.
When it comes to classification, it largely depends on personal preference—maybe it's an aesthetic question, because there’s something beautiful about the order and structure of numbers. A man once said he split humanity into two main groups: those who use snuff and those who don’t. I’m not Pg 120certain that some of our classifications of magic squares aren’t just as pointless. However, enthusiasts of these topics seem to agree that Nasik magic squares (named by Mr. Frost, a researcher, after the Indian town where he lived, and also referred to as Diabolique and Pandiagonal) and Associated magic squares are particularly interesting, so I’ll explain what these are for those new to the subject.

I published in The Queen for January 15, 1910, an article that would enable the reader to write out, if he so desired, all the 880 magics of the fourth order, and the following is the complete classification that I gave. The first example is that of a Simple square that fulfils the simple conditions and no more. The second example is a Semi-Nasik, which has the additional property that the opposite short diagonals of two cells each together sum to 34. Thus, 14 + 4 + 11 + 5 = 34 and 12 + 6 + 13 + 3 = 34. The third example is not only Semi-Nasik but Pg 121also Associated, because in it every number, if added to the number that is equidistant, in a straight line, from the centre gives 17. Thus, 1 + 16, 2 + 15, 3 + 14, etc. The fourth example, considered the most "perfect" of all, is a Nasik. Here all the broken diagonals sum to 34. Thus, for example, 15 + 14 + 2 + 3, and 10 + 4 + 7 + 13, and 15 + 5 + 2 + 12. As a consequence, its properties are such that if you repeat the square in all directions you may mark off a square, 4 × 4, wherever you please, and it will be magic.
I published an article in The Queen on January 15, 1910, that allows the reader to list all 880 magics of the fourth order if they wish. Below is the complete classification I provided. The first example is a simple square that meets the basic conditions and nothing more. The second example is a Semi-Nasik, which has the additional feature that the opposite short diagonals of two cells each sum to 34. For instance, 14 + 4 + 11 + 5 = 34 and 12 + 6 + 13 + 3 = 34. The third example is not only Semi-Nasik but also Pg 121Associated because in it every number, when added to the number that is directly opposite from the center, equals 17. So, 1 + 16, 2 + 15, 3 + 14, etc. The fourth example, regarded as the most "perfect" of all, is a Nasik. Here, all the broken diagonals add up to 34. For example, 15 + 14 + 2 + 3, 10 + 4 + 7 + 13, and 15 + 5 + 2 + 12. Consequently, its properties are such that if you extend the square in all directions, you can outline a 4 × 4 square anywhere you like, and it will be magic.
The following table not only gives a complete enumeration under the four forms described, but also a classification under the twelve graphic types indicated in the diagrams. The dots at the end of each line represent the relative positions of those complementary pairs, 1 + 16, 2 + 15, etc., which sum to 17. For example, it will be seen that the first and second magic squares given are of Type VI., that the third square is of Type III., and that the fourth is of Type I. Edouard Lucas indicated these types, but he dropped exactly half of them and did not attempt the classification.
The following table not only provides a complete list under the four forms described but also categorizes them according to the twelve graphic types shown in the diagrams. The dots at the end of each line represent the relative positions of those complementary pairs, 1 + 16, 2 + 15, etc., which total 17. For example, you'll see that the first and second magic squares listed are Type VI, the third square is Type III, and the fourth is Type I. Edouard Lucas identified these types, but he skipped exactly half of them and didn't attempt the classification.

NASIK | (Type I.) | 48 | ||
SEMI-NASIK | (Type II., Transpositions of Nasik) | 48 | ||
" | (Type III., Associated) | 48 | ||
" | (Type IV.) | 96 | ||
" | (Type V.) | 96 | 192 | |
" | (Type VI.) | 96 | 384 | |
SIMPLE. | (Type VI.) | 208 | ||
" | (Type VII.) | 56 | ||
" | (Type VIII.) | 56 | ||
" | (Type IX.) | 56 | ||
" | (Type X.) | 56 | 224 | |
" | (Type XI.) | 8 | ||
" | (Type XII.) | 8 | 16 | 448 |
880 |
It is hardly necessary to say that every one of these squares will produce seven others by mere reversals and reflections, which we do not count as different. So that there are 7,040 squares of this order, 880 of which are fundamentally different.
It’s almost unnecessary to mention that each of these squares will create seven others through simple reversals and reflections, which we don’t consider as different. So there are 7,040 squares of this type, 880 of which are fundamentally different.
An infinite variety of puzzles may be made introducing new conditions into the magic square. In The Canterbury Puzzles I have given examples of such squares with coins, with postage stamps, with cutting-out conditions, and other tricks. I will now give a few variants involving further novel conditions.
An endless range of puzzles can be created by adding new rules to the magic square. In The Canterbury Puzzles, I provided examples of these squares using coins, postage stamps, cutting-out conditions, and various other tricks. Now, I will present a few variations that include even more unique conditions.
Nearly everybody knows that a "magic square" is an arrangement of numbers in the form of a square so that every row, every column, and each of the two long diagonals adds up alike. For example, you would find little difficulty in merely placing a different number in each of the nine cells in the illustration so that the rows, columns, and diagonals shall all add up 15. And at your first attempt you will probably find that you have an 8 in one of the corners. The puzzle is to construct the magic square, under the same conditions, with the 8 in the position shown.
Almost everyone knows that a "magic square" is a setup of numbers arranged in a square so that the sum of each row, each column, and both long diagonals are the same. For instance, you would have little trouble placing different numbers in each of the nine cells in the illustration so that the sums of the rows, columns, and diagonals all equal 15. And on your first try, you will probably find that there’s an 8 in one of the corners. The challenge is to create the magic square, under the same conditions, with the 8 positioned as shown.


I happened to have lying on my table a number of strips of cardboard, with numbers printed on them from 1 upwards in numerical order. The idea suddenly came to me, as ideas have a way of unexpectedly coming, to make a little puzzle of this. I wonder whether many readers will arrive at the same solution that I did.
I happened to have several strips of cardboard on my table, with numbers printed on them starting from 1 and going up in order. Suddenly, an idea struck me, like ideas often do out of the blue, to create a little puzzle out of this. I wonder if many readers will come up with the same solution I did.
Take seven strips of cardboard and lay them together as above. Then write on each of them the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, as shown, so that the numbers shall form seven rows and seven columns.
Take seven strips of cardboard and lay them out together as shown above. Then, write the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 on each strip, arranged so that the numbers create seven rows and seven columns.
Now, the puzzle is to cut these strips into the fewest possible pieces so that they may be placed together and form a magic square, the seven rows, seven columns, and two diagonals adding up the same number. No figures may Pg 122be turned upside down or placed on their sides—that is, all the strips must lie in their original direction.
Now, the challenge is to cut these strips into the fewest possible pieces so they can be arranged to form a magic square, where the seven rows, seven columns, and two diagonals all add up to the same number. No figures may Pg 122 be turned upside down or placed on their sides—that is, all the strips must remain in their original orientation.
Of course you could cut each strip into seven separate pieces, each piece containing a number, and the puzzle would then be very easy, but I need hardly say that forty-nine pieces is a long way from being the fewest possible.
Of course, you could cut each strip into seven separate pieces, with each piece containing a number, and then the puzzle would be very easy. But I hardly need to mention that forty-nine pieces is far from the fewest possible.

The illustration shows the plan of a prison of nine cells all communicating with one another by doorways. The eight prisoners have their numbers on their backs, and any one of them is allowed to exercise himself in whichever cell may happen to be vacant, subject to the rule that at no time shall two prisoners be in the same cell. The merry monarch in whose dominions the prison was situated offered them special comforts one Christmas Eve if, without breaking that rule, they could so place themselves that their numbers should form a magic square.
The illustration shows the layout of a prison with nine cells, all connected by doorways. The eight prisoners have their numbers on their backs, and each one can use any vacant cell for exercise, as long as no two prisoners are in the same cell at the same time. The cheerful king who ruled over the area where the prison was located promised them special treats one Christmas Eve if they could arrange themselves in such a way that their numbers formed a magic square, without breaking that rule.
Now, prisoner No. 7 happened to know a good deal about magic squares, so he worked out a scheme and naturally selected the method that was most expeditious—that is, one involving the fewest possible moves from cell to cell. But one man was a surly, obstinate fellow (quite unfit for the society of his jovial companions), and he refused to move out of his cell or take any part in the proceedings. But No. 7 was quite equal to the emergency, and found that he could still do what was required in the fewest possible moves without troubling the brute to leave his cell. The puzzle is to show how he did it and, incidentally, to discover which prisoner was so stupidly obstinate. Can you find the fellow?
Now, prisoner No. 7 happened to know a lot about magic squares, so he came up with a plan and naturally chose the method that was the quickest—that is, one with the fewest possible moves from cell to cell. But one guy was a grumpy, stubborn person (totally unfit for the company of his cheerful friends), and he refused to leave his cell or participate in what was going on. However, No. 7 was fully capable of handling the situation and found that he could still accomplish what was needed in the fewest moves without bothering the guy to step out of his cell. The challenge is to show how he did it and, along the way, figure out which prisoner was so annoyingly stubborn. Can you identify the guy?

Shortly after the episode recorded in the last puzzle occurred, a ninth prisoner was placed in the vacant cell, and the merry monarch then offered them all complete liberty on the following strange conditions. They were required so to rearrange themselves in the cells that their numbers formed a magic square without their movements causing any two of them ever to be in the same cell together, except that at the start one man was allowed to be placed on the shoulders of another man, and thus add their numbers together, and move as one man. For example, No. 8 might be placed on the shoulders of No. 2, and then they would move about together as 10. The reader should seek first to solve the puzzle in the fewest possible moves, and then see that the man who is burdened has the least possible amount of work to do.
Shortly after the event described in the last puzzle, a ninth prisoner was added to the empty cell, and the cheerful king then offered them all complete freedom under some unusual conditions. They had to rearrange themselves in their cells so that their numbers formed a magic square, without any two of them ever being in the same cell together, except at the beginning when one person was allowed to sit on another's shoulders, combining their numbers and moving as one unit. For instance, No. 8 could sit on No. 2’s shoulders, and together they would move as 10. The reader should first try to solve the puzzle in the fewest moves possible and then ensure that the person carrying the burden has the least amount of work to do.
Not fifty miles from Cadiz stood in the middle ages a castle, all traces of which have for centuries disappeared. Among other interesting features, this castle contained a particularly unpleasant dungeon divided into sixteen cells, all communicating with one another, as shown in the illustration.
Not fifty miles from Cadiz, there was a castle in the Middle Ages, but all traces of it have vanished for centuries. Among its various interesting features, this castle had a particularly grim dungeon divided into sixteen cells, all connected to each other, as shown in the illustration.
Now, the governor was a merry wight, and very fond of puzzles withal. One day he went to the dungeon and said to the prisoners, "By my halidame!" (or its equivalent in Spanish) "you shall all be set free if you can solve this puzzle. You must so arrange yourselves in the sixteen cells that the numbers on your backs shall form a magic square in which every column, every row, and each of the two diagonals shall add up the same. Only remember this: that in no case may two of you ever be together in the same cell."
Now, the governor was a cheerful guy, and he really liked puzzles. One day he went to the dungeon and said to the prisoners, "By my word!" (or its equivalent in Spanish) "you will all be set free if you can solve this puzzle. You need to arrange yourselves in the sixteen cells so that the numbers on your backs form a magic square where every column, every row, and both diagonals all add up to the same total. Just remember: no two of you can ever be in the same cell."
One of the prisoners, after working at the problem for two or three days, with a piece of chalk, undertook to obtain the liberty of himself and his fellow-prisoners if they would follow his directions and move through the doorway Pg 123from cell to cell in the order in which he should call out their numbers.

He succeeded in his attempt, and, what is more remarkable, it would seem from the account of his method recorded in the ancient manuscript lying before me, that he did so in the fewest possible moves. The reader is asked to show what these moves were.
He succeeded in his attempt, and even more impressively, it seems from the description of his method written in the ancient manuscript in front of me that he did it in the fewest possible moves. The reader is asked to identify what those moves were.

The above is a trustworthy plan of a certain Russian prison in Siberia. All the cells are numbered, and the prisoners are numbered the same as the cells they occupy. The prison diet is so fattening that these political prisoners are in perpetual fear lest, should their pardon arrive, they might not be able to squeeze themselves through the narrow doorways and get out. And of course it would be an unreasonable thing to ask any government to pull down the walls of a prison just to liberate the prisoners, however innocent they might be. Therefore these men take all the healthy exercise they can in order to retard their increasing obesity, and one of their recreations will serve to furnish us with the following puzzle.
The above is a reliable layout of a Russian prison in Siberia. All the cells are numbered, and the prisoners are assigned the same numbers as their cells. The prison food is so rich that these political prisoners constantly worry that if they are pardoned, they might not be able to squeeze through the narrow doorways to escape. And of course, it would be unreasonable to expect any government to tear down the walls of a prison just to free the inmates, no matter how innocent they may be. So, these men get as much exercise as they can to slow down their weight gain, and one of their activities will provide us with the following puzzle.
Show, in the fewest possible moves, how the sixteen men may form themselves into a magic square, so that the numbers on their backs shall add up the same in each of the four columns, four rows, and two diagonals without two prisoners having been at any time in the same cell together. I had better say, for the information of those who have not yet been made acquainted with these places, that it is a peculiarity of prisons that you are not allowed to go outside their walls. Any prisoner may go any distance that is possible in a single move.
Show, in the fewest moves possible, how the sixteen men can arrange themselves into a magic square, so that the numbers on their backs add up to the same in each of the four columns, four rows, and two diagonals without any two prisoners being in the same cell at the same time. I should mention, for the benefit of those who are not yet familiar with these places, that a unique feature of prisons is that you're not allowed to go outside their walls. Any prisoner can move as far as possible in a single move.

Take an ordinary pack of cards and throw out the twelve court cards. Now, with nine of the remainder (different suits are of no consequence) form the above magic square. It will be seen that the pips add up fifteen in every row in every column, and in each of the two long diagonals. The puzzle is with the remaining cards (without disturbing this arrangement) to form three more such magic squares, so that each of the four shall add up to a different sum. There will, of course, be four cards in the reduced pack that will not be used. These four may be any that you choose. It is not a difficult puzzle, but requires just a little thought.
Take a regular pack of cards and remove the twelve face cards. Now, using nine of the remaining cards (it doesn’t matter what suits they are), create the magic square mentioned above. You’ll notice that the pips add up to fifteen in every row, every column, and both long diagonals. The challenge is to use the remaining cards (without changing this arrangement) to create three more magic squares, so that each of the four squares adds up to a different total. There will be four cards left in the reduced pack that won’t be used. You can choose any four cards you like. It’s not a very hard puzzle, but it does require a bit of thought.
The illustration shows eighteen dominoes arranged in the form of a square so that the pips in every one of the six columns, six rows, and two long diagonals add up 13. This is the smallest summation possible with any selection of dominoes from an ordinary box of twenty-eight. The greatest possible summation is 23, and a solution for this number may be easily obtained by substituting for every number its complement to 6. Thus for every blank substitute a 6, for every 1 a 5, for every 2 a 4, for Pg 1243 a 3, for 4 a 2, for 5 a 1, and for 6 a blank. But the puzzle is to make a selection of eighteen dominoes and arrange them (in exactly the form shown) so that the summations shall be 18 in all the fourteen directions mentioned.
The illustration shows eighteen dominoes arranged in a square so that the pips in each of the six columns, six rows, and two long diagonals add up to 13. This is the smallest total possible with any selection of dominoes from a regular set of twenty-eight. The highest possible total is 23, and you can easily achieve this by replacing each number with its complement to 6. So, for every blank, use a 6; for every 1, a 5; for every 2, a 4; for every 3, a 3; for 4, a 2; for 5, a 1; and for 6, a blank. The challenge is to select eighteen dominoes and arrange them (exactly in the shown format) so that the totals equal 18 in all fourteen directions mentioned.

SUBTRACTING, MULTIPLYING, AND DIVIDING MAGICS.
Although the adding magic square is of such great antiquity, curiously enough the multiplying magic does not appear to have been mentioned until the end of the eighteenth century, when it was referred to slightly by one writer and then forgotten until I revived it in Tit-Bits in 1897. The dividing magic was apparently first discussed by me in The Weekly Dispatch in June 1898. The subtracting magic is here introduced for the first time. It will now be convenient to deal with all four kinds of magic squares together.
Although the adding magic square is very old, interestingly, the multiplying magic seems to have been mentioned only towards the end of the eighteenth century, when one writer referred to it briefly before it was forgotten until I brought it back in Tit-Bits in 1897. The dividing magic was apparently first discussed by me in The Weekly Dispatch in June 1898. The subtracting magic is introduced here for the first time. It will now be convenient to cover all four types of magic squares together.

In these four diagrams we have examples in the third order of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing squares. In the first the constant, 15, is obtained by the addition of the rows, columns, and two diagonals. In the second case you get the constant, 5, by subtracting the first number in a line from the second, and the result from the third. You can, of course, perform the operation in either direction; but, in order to avoid negative numbers, it is more convenient simply to deduct the middle number from the sum of the two extreme numbers. This is, in effect, the same thing. It will be seen that the constant of the adding square is n times that of the subtracting square derived from it, where n is the number of cells in the side of square. And the manner of derivation here is simply to reverse the two diagonals. Both squares are "associated"—a term I have explained in the introductory article to this department.
In these four diagrams, we show examples of the third order of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing squares. In the first, the constant, 15, comes from adding the rows, columns, and two diagonals. In the second case, you get the constant, 5, by subtracting the first number in a line from the second, and then the result from the third. You can do the operation in either direction, but to avoid negative numbers, it's easier to just subtract the middle number from the sum of the two outer numbers. This is essentially the same thing. You'll notice that the constant of the adding square is n times that of the subtracting square derived from it, where n is the number of cells along one side of the square. The way to derive it is simply to reverse the two diagonals. Both squares are "associated"—a term I explained in the introductory article to this department.
The third square is a multiplying magic. The constant, 216, is obtained by multiplying together the three numbers in any line. It is "associated" by multiplication, instead of by addition. It is here necessary to remark that in an adding square it is not essential that the nine numbers should be consecutive. Write down any nine numbers in this way—
The third square is a multiplying magic. The constant, 216, is obtained by multiplying the three numbers in any line. It is "associated" by multiplication instead of addition. It is important to note that in an adding square, the nine numbers don't need to be consecutive. Just write down any nine numbers like this—
1 | 3 | 5 |
4 | 6 | 8 |
7 | 9 | 11 |
so that the horizontal differences are all alike and the vertical differences also alike (here 2 and 3), and these numbers will form an adding magic square. By making the differences 1 and 3 we, of course, get consecutive numbers—a particular case, and nothing more. Now, in the case of the multiplying square we must take these numbers in geometrical instead of arithmetical progression, thus—
so that the horizontal differences are all the same and the vertical differences are also the same (here 2 and 3), and these numbers will create an adding magic square. By using the differences of 1 and 3, we obviously get consecutive numbers—a specific case, and nothing more. Now, in the case of the multiplying square, we need to take these numbers in a geometric rather than an arithmetic progression, so—
1 | 3 | 9 |
2 | 6 | 18 |
4 | 12 | 36 |
Here each successive number in the rows is multiplied by 3, and in the columns by 2. Had we multiplied by 2 and 8 we should get the regular geometrical progression, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256, but I wish to avoid high numbers. The numbers are arranged in the square in the same order as in the adding square.
Here, each number in the rows is multiplied by 3, and in the columns by 2. If we had multiplied by 2 and 8, we would get the standard geometric sequence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256, but I want to steer clear of large numbers. The numbers are organized in the square the same way as in the adding square.
The fourth diagram is a dividing magic square. The constant 6 is here obtained by dividing the second number in a line by the first (in either direction) and the third number by the quotient. But, again, the process is simplified by dividing the product of the two extreme numbers by the middle number. This Pg 125square is also "associated" by multiplication. It is derived from the multiplying square by merely reversing the diagonals, and the constant of the multiplying square is the cube of that of the dividing square derived from it.
The fourth diagram is a magic square that divides. The constant 6 is obtained by dividing the second number in a row by the first (in either direction) and then dividing the third number by that result. However, the process is easier if we divide the product of the two outer numbers by the middle number. This Pg 125 square is also related through multiplication. It's created from the multiplying square by simply swapping the diagonals, and the constant of the multiplying square is the cube of the constant of the dividing square derived from it.
The next set of diagrams shows the solutions for the fifth order of square. They are all "associated" in the same way as before. The subtracting square is derived from the adding square by reversing the diagonals and exchanging opposite numbers in the centres of the borders, and the constant of one is again n times that of the other. The dividing square is derived from the multiplying square in the same way, and the constant of the latter is the 5th power (that is the nth) of that of the former.
The next set of diagrams shows the solutions for the fifth order of squares. They are all "associated" in the same way as before. The subtracting square is created from the adding square by reversing the diagonals and swapping the opposite numbers in the centers of the borders, and the constant of one is again n times that of the other. The dividing square is created from the multiplying square in the same way, and the constant of the latter is the 5th power (that is the nth) of that of the former.

These squares are thus quite easy for odd orders. But the reader will probably find some difficulty over the even orders, concerning which I will leave him to make his own researches, merely propounding two little problems.
These squares are pretty straightforward for odd orders. However, the reader might encounter some challenges with the even orders, so I'll let them do their own research on that, just presenting two small problems.
Construct a subtracting magic square with the first sixteen whole numbers that shall be "associated" by subtraction. The constant is, of course, obtained by subtracting the first number from the second in line, the result from the third, and the result again from the fourth. Also construct a dividing magic square of the same order that shall be "associated" by division. The constant is obtained by dividing the second number in a line by the first, the third by the quotient, and the fourth by the next quotient.
Create a subtracting magic square using the first sixteen whole numbers that will be "linked" through subtraction. The constant is, of course, found by subtracting the first number from the second in each row, the result from the third, and that result from the fourth. Also, create a dividing magic square of the same size that will be "linked" through division. The constant is found by dividing the second number in a row by the first, the third by the resulting quotient, and the fourth by the next quotient.
While reading a French mathematical work I happened to come across, the following statement: "A very remarkable magic square of 8, in two degrees, has been constructed by M. Pfeffermann. In other words, he has managed to dispose the sixty-four first numbers on the squares of a chessboard in such a way that the sum of the numbers in every line, every column, and in each of the two diagonals, shall be the same; and more, that if one substitutes for all the numbers their squares, the square still remains magic." I at once set to work to solve this problem, and, although it proved a very hard nut, one was rewarded by the discovery of some curious and beautiful laws that govern it. The reader may like to try his hand at the puzzle.
While reading a French math book, I came across this statement: "A very remarkable magic square of 8, in two degrees, has been created by M. Pfeffermann. In other words, he arranged the first sixty-four numbers on the squares of a chessboard so that the sum of the numbers in each row, each column, and both diagonals is the same; furthermore, if you replace all the numbers with their squares, the square still remains magic." I immediately started working on this problem, and even though it was quite challenging, I discovered some interesting and beautiful laws that apply to it. The reader might want to give the puzzle a try.
MAGIC SQUARES OF PRIMES.
The problem of constructing magic squares with prime numbers only was first discussed by myself in The Weekly Dispatch for 22nd July and 5th August 1900; but during the last three or four years it has received great attention from American mathematicians. First, they have sought to form these squares with the lowest possible constants. Thus, the first nine prime numbers, 1 to 23 inclusive, sum to 99, which (being divisible by 3) is theoretically a suitable series; yet it has been demonstrated that the lowest possible constant is 111, and the required series as follows: 1, 7, 13, 31, 37, 43, 61, 67, and 73. Similarly, in the case of the fourth order, the lowest series of primes that are "theoretically suitable" will not serve. But in every other order, up to the 12th inclusive, magic squares have been constructed with the lowest series of primes theoretically possible. And the 12th is the lowest order in which a straight series of prime numbers, unbroken, from 1 upwards has been made to work. In other words, the first 144 odd prime numbers have actually been arranged in magic form. The following summary is taken from The Monist (Chicago) for October 1913:—
The issue of creating magic squares using only prime numbers was first addressed by me in The Weekly Dispatch on July 22 and August 5, 1900; however, over the past three or four years, it has received significant focus from American mathematicians. Initially, they aimed to construct these squares with the smallest possible constants. The first nine prime numbers, 1 to 23 inclusive, add up to 99, which (since it's divisible by 3) is theoretically a suitable series; yet it has been proven that the smallest constant is 111, with the required series being: 1, 7, 13, 31, 37, 43, 61, 67, and 73. In the case of the fourth order, the lowest series of primes that are "theoretically suitable" does not suffice. Nevertheless, for every other order up to and including the 12th, magic squares have been created using the lowest theoretically possible series of primes. The 12th is the lowest order where a continuous series of prime numbers starting from 1 has proven effective. In other words, the first 144 odd prime numbers have successfully been arranged in magic form. The following summary is taken from The Monist (Chicago) for October 1913:—
Order of Square. | Totals of Series. | Lowest Constants. | Squares made by— |
3rd | 333 | 111 | Henry E. Dudeney (1900). |
4th | 408 | 102 | Ernest Bergholt and C. D. Shuldham. |
5th | 1065 | 213 | H. A. Sayles. |
6th | 2448 | 408 | C. D. Shuldham and J. N. Muncey. |
7th | 4893 | 699 | do. |
8th | 8912 | 1114 | do. |
9th | 15129 | 1681 | do. |
10th | 24160 | 2416 | J. N. Muncey. |
11th | 36095 | 3355 | do. |
12th | 54168 | 4514 | do. |
For further details the reader should consult the article itself, by W. S. Andrews and H. A. Sayles.
For more details, the reader should check out the article itself by W. S. Andrews and H. A. Sayles.
Pg 126These same investigators have also performed notable feats in constructing associated and bordered prime magics, and Mr. Shuldham has sent me a remarkable paper in which he gives examples of Nasik squares constructed with primes for all orders from the 4th to the 10th, with the exception of the 3rd (which is clearly impossible) and the 9th, which, up to the time of writing, has baffled all attempts.
Pg 126These same researchers have also achieved significant accomplishments in building associated and bordered prime magic squares. Mr. Shuldham shared an impressive paper with me, where he provides examples of Nasik squares created with prime numbers for all orders from the 4th to the 10th, except for the 3rd (which is obviously impossible) and the 9th, which, as of the time of writing, has stumped all efforts.

This is the form in which I first introduced the question of magic squares with prime numbers. I will here warn the reader that there is a little trap.
This is how I first brought up the topic of magic squares with prime numbers. I want to warn the reader that there's a bit of a trap here.
A fruit merchant had nine baskets. Every basket contained plums (all sound and ripe), and the number in every basket was different. When placed as shown in the illustration they formed a magic square, so that if he took any three baskets in a line in the eight possible directions there would always be the same number of plums. This part of the puzzle is easy enough to understand. But what follows seems at first sight a little queer.
A fruit merchant had nine baskets. Each basket contained plums (all fresh and ripe), and the number in each basket was different. When arranged as shown in the illustration, they created a magic square, meaning that if he took any three baskets in a line in any of the eight possible directions, there would always be the same number of plums. This part of the puzzle is pretty straightforward. But what comes next might seem a bit strange at first glance.
The merchant told one of his men to distribute the contents of any basket he chose among some children, giving plums to every child so that each should receive an equal number. But the man found it quite impossible, no matter which basket he selected and no matter how many children he included in the treat. Show, by giving contents of the nine baskets, how this could come about.
The merchant asked one of his workers to share the contents of any basket he picked among some kids, making sure each child got the same amount of plums. However, the worker found it really hard to do this, no matter which basket he chose or how many kids he included in the snack. Show how this could happen by giving the contents of the nine baskets.

Before Mr. Beauchamp Cholmondely Marjoribanks set out on his tour in the Far East, he prided himself on his knowledge of magic squares, a subject that he had made his special hobby; but he soon discovered that he had never really touched more than the fringe of the subject, and that the wily Chinee could Pg 127beat him easily. I present a little problem that one learned mandarin propounded to our traveller, as depicted on the last page.
Before Mr. Beauchamp Cholmondely Marjoribanks started his trip to the Far East, he took pride in his knowledge of magic squares, which had become his special hobby. However, he quickly realized that he had only scratched the surface of the topic and that the clever Chinese could easily outsmart him. I present a little problem that a learned mandarin posed to our traveler, as shown on the last page.
The Chinaman, after remarking that the construction of the ordinary magic square of twenty-five cells is "too velly muchee easy," asked our countryman so to place the numbers 1 to 25 in the square that every column, every row, and each of the two diagonals should add up 65, with only prime numbers on the shaded "T." Of course the prime numbers available are 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 23, so you are at liberty to select any nine of these that will serve your purpose. Can you construct this curious little magic square?
The Chinese man, noting that creating a standard magic square with twenty-five cells is "too easy," asked our fellow countryman to arrange the numbers 1 to 25 in such a way that every row, every column, and both diagonals add up to 65, using only prime numbers on the shaded "T." The prime numbers available are 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 23, so you can choose any nine of these to meet your needs. Can you create this interesting little magic square?
As we have just discussed the construction of magic squares with prime numbers, the following forms an interesting companion problem. Make a magic square with nine consecutive composite numbers—the smallest possible.
As we've just talked about creating magic squares with prime numbers, here's an interesting follow-up problem. Create a magic square using nine consecutive composite numbers—the smallest possible set.
Here is a problem that has never yet been solved, nor has its impossibility been demonstrated. Play the knight once to every square of the chessboard in a complete tour, numbering the squares in the order visited, so that when completed the square shall be "magic," adding up to 260 in every column, every row, and each of the two long diagonals. I shall give the best answer that I have been able to obtain, in which there is a slight error in the diagonals alone. Can a perfect solution be found? I am convinced that it cannot, but it is only a "pious opinion."
Here’s a problem that has never been solved, and its impossibility hasn't been proven either. Move the knight to every square on the chessboard in a complete tour, numbering the squares in the order visited, so that when finished, each square will be "magic," adding up to 260 in every column, row, and both long diagonals. I will share the best answer I’ve been able to come up with, which has a small error in the diagonals. Can a perfect solution be found? I'm convinced it can't, but that's just my personal opinion.
MAZES AND HOW TO THREAD THEM.
"In wandering mazes lost."
Paradise Lost.
"In lost wandering mazes."
Paradise Lost.
The Old English word "maze," signifying a labyrinth, probably comes from the Scandinavian, but its origin is somewhat uncertain. The late Professor Skeat thought that the substantive was derived from the verb, and as in old times to be mazed or amazed was to be "lost in thought," the transition to a maze in whose tortuous windings we are lost is natural and easy.
The Old English word "maze," meaning a labyrinth, likely comes from Scandinavian origins, but its exact source is unclear. The late Professor Skeat believed that the noun came from the verb, and since being mazed or amazed used to mean being "lost in thought," the shift to a maze where we get lost in its twists and turns is a natural progression.
The word "labyrinth" is derived from a Greek word signifying the passages of a mine. The ancient mines of Greece and elsewhere inspired fear and awe on account of their darkness and the danger of getting lost in their intricate passages. Legend was afterwards built round these mazes. The most familiar instance is the labyrinth made by Dædalus in Crete for King Minos. In the centre was placed the Minotaur, and no one who entered could find his way out again, but became the prey of the monster. Seven youths and seven maidens were sent regularly by the Athenians, and were duly devoured, until Theseus slew the monster and escaped from the maze by aid of the clue of thread provided by Ariadne; which accounts for our using to-day the expression "threading a maze."
The word "labyrinth" comes from a Greek term that means the passages of a mine. The ancient mines of Greece and other places inspired fear and awe due to their darkness and the risk of getting lost in their complex passages. Legends grew around these mazes. The most well-known example is the labyrinth built by Daedalus in Crete for King Minos. In the center was the Minotaur, and anyone who entered would get trapped and become the monster's prey. Seven young men and seven young women were sent regularly by the Athenians, and they were eaten, until Theseus killed the monster and escaped from the maze using the thread provided by Ariadne; which is why we still say "threading a maze" today.
The various forms of construction of mazes include complicated ranges of caverns, architectural labyrinths, or sepulchral buildings, tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles and tiled pavements, winding paths cut in the turf, and topiary mazes formed by clipped hedges. As a matter of fact, they may be said to have descended to us in precisely this order of variety.
The different types of mazes include complex networks of caves, architectural labyrinths, or tomb-like structures, twisted designs marked by colored marbles and tiled floors, winding paths carved into the grass, and topiary mazes created by trimmed hedges. In fact, we can say that they have come down to us in exactly this variety.
Mazes were used as ornaments on the state robes of Christian emperors before the ninth century, and were soon adopted in the decoration of cathedrals and other churches. The original idea was doubtless to employ them as symbols of the complicated folds of sin by which man is surrounded. They began to abound in the early part of the twelfth century, and I give an illustration of one of this period in the parish church at St. Quentin (Fig. 1). It formed a pavement of the nave, and its diameter is 34½ feet. The path here is the line itself. If you place your pencil at the point A and ignore the enclosing line, the line leads you to the centre by a long route over the entire area; but you never have any option as to direction during your course. As we shall find in similar cases, these early ecclesiastical mazes were generally not of a puzzle nature, but simply long, winding paths that took you over practically all the ground enclosed.
Mazes were used as decorations on the state robes of Christian emperors before the ninth century and were quickly adopted in the decoration of cathedrals and other churches. The original idea was probably to use them as symbols of the complicated layers of sin surrounding humanity. They started to appear frequently in the early twelfth century, and I’m including an illustration of one from this period in the parish church at St. Quentin (Fig. 1). It formed a pavement in the nave, and its diameter is 34½ feet. The path here is the line itself. If you place your pencil at point A and ignore the surrounding line, the path takes you to the center by a long route across the entire area; however, you never have any options for direction along the way. As we will see in similar cases, these early ecclesiastical mazes were generally not puzzles but simply long, winding paths that covered nearly all the space within.

In the abbey church of St. Berlin, at St. Omer, is another of these curious floors, representing the Temple of Jerusalem, with stations for pilgrims. These mazes were actually visited and traversed by them as a compromise for not going to the Holy Land in fulfilment of a vow. They were also used as a means of penance, the penitent frequently being directed to go the whole course of the maze on hands and knees.
In the abbey church of St. Berlin, at St. Omer, there's another one of these interesting floors that depicts the Temple of Jerusalem, complete with stations for pilgrims. These mazes were actually walked through by the pilgrims as a way to fulfill a vow when they couldn't travel to the Holy Land. They were also used for penance, with those doing penance often instructed to crawl through the entire maze on their hands and knees.

The maze in Chartres Cathedral, of which I give an illustration (Fig. 2), is 40 feet across, and was used by penitents following the procession of Calvary. A labyrinth in Amiens Cathedral was octagonal, similar to that at St. Quentin, measuring 42 feet across. It bore the date 1288, but was destroyed in 1708. In the chapter-house at Bayeux is a labyrinth formed of tiles, red, black, and encaustic, with a pattern of brown and yellow. Dr. Ducarel, in his "Tour through Part of Normandy" (printed in 1767), mentions the floor of the great guard-chamber in the abbey of St. Stephen, at Caen, "the middle whereof represents a maze or labyrinth about 10 feet diameter, and so artfully contrived that, were we to suppose a man following all the intricate meanders of its volutes, he could not travel less than a mile before he got from one end to the other."
The maze in Chartres Cathedral, which I’ve illustrated (Fig. 2), is 40 feet wide and was used by penitents during the Calvary procession. A labyrinth in Amiens Cathedral was octagonal, similar to the one at St. Quentin, measuring 42 feet wide. It was dated 1288 but was destroyed in 1708. In the chapter house at Bayeux, there’s a labyrinth made of red, black, and encaustic tiles, featuring a brown and yellow pattern. Dr. Ducarel, in his "Tour through Part of Normandy" (published in 1767), refers to the floor of the large guard chamber in the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, “the center of which shows a maze or labyrinth about 10 feet in diameter, so cleverly designed that if a man were to trace all the complicated twists and turns, he would cover at least a mile before reaching the other end.”

Then these mazes were sometimes reduced in size and represented on a single tile (Fig. 3). I give an example from Lucca Cathedral. It is on one of the porch piers, and is 19½ inches in diameter. A writer in 1858 says that, "from the continual attrition it has received from thousands of tracing fingers, a central group of Theseus and the Minotaur has now been very nearly effaced." Other examples were, and perhaps still are, to be found in the Abbey of Toussarts, at Châlons-sur-Marne, in the very ancient church of St. Michele at Pavia, at Aix in Provence, in the cathedrals of Poitiers, Rheims, and Arras, in the church of Santa Maria in Aquiro in Rome, in San Vitale at Ravenna, in the Roman mosaic pavement found at Salzburg, and elsewhere. These mazes were sometimes called "Chemins de Jerusalem," as being emblematical of the difficulties attending a journey to the earthly Jerusalem and of those encountered by the Christian before he can reach the heavenly Jerusalem—where the centre was frequently called "Ciel."
Then these mazes were sometimes made smaller and depicted on a single tile (Fig. 3). One example comes from Lucca Cathedral. It’s on one of the porch piers and measures 19½ inches in diameter. A writer in 1858 noted that, "due to the constant rubbing from thousands of tracing fingers, the central image of Theseus and the Minotaur has almost been completely worn away." Other examples could be found, and perhaps still can, in the Abbey of Toussarts at Châlons-sur-Marne, in the very old church of St. Michele at Pavia, in Aix in Provence, in the cathedrals of Poitiers, Rheims, and Arras, in the church of Santa Maria in Aquiro in Rome, in San Vitale at Ravenna, in the Roman mosaic pavement discovered in Salzburg, and elsewhere. These mazes were sometimes called "Chemins de Jerusalem," symbolizing the challenges faced on the journey to earthly Jerusalem as well as those encountered by Christians before reaching the heavenly Jerusalem, where the center was often referred to as "Ciel."
Common as these mazes were upon the Continent, it is probable that no example is to be found in any English church; at least I am not aware of the existence of any. But almost every county has, or has had, its specimens of Pg 129mazes cut in the turf. Though these are frequently known as "miz-mazes" or "mize-mazes," it is not uncommon to find them locally called "Troy-towns," "shepherds' races," or "Julian's Bowers"—names that are misleading, as suggesting a false origin. From the facts alone that many of these English turf mazes are clearly copied from those in the Continental churches, and practically all are found close to some ecclesiastical building or near the site of an ancient one, we may regard it as certain that they were of church origin and not invented by the shepherds or other rustics. And curiously enough, these turf mazes are apparently unknown on the Continent. They are distinctly mentioned by Shakespeare:—
Common as these mazes were on the Continent, it's likely that there's no example found in any English church; at least, I'm not aware of any existing. However, almost every county has had or still has its own examples of Pg 129mazes cut into the grass. Although they're often referred to as "miz-mazes" or "mize-mazes," it's not unusual to find them locally called "Troy-towns," "shepherds' races," or "Julian's Bowers"—names that can be misleading, suggesting a false origin. Given that many of these English turf mazes are clearly modeled after those in Continental churches, and nearly all are located near some church building or the site of an ancient one, we can confidently say they originated from the church and were not created by shepherds or other rural people. Interestingly, these turf mazes seem to be unknown on the Continent. They are specifically mentioned by Shakespeare:—
And the charming mazes in the playful green "For lack of tread, they are indistinguishable."
There was such a maze at Comberton, in Cambridgeshire, and another, locally called the "miz-maze," at Leigh, in Dorset. The latter was on the highest part of a field on the top of a hill, a quarter of a mile from the village, and was slightly hollow in the middle and enclosed by a bank about 3 feet high. It was circular, and was thirty paces in diameter. In 1868 the turf had grown over the little trenches, and it was then impossible to trace the paths of the maze. The Comberton one was at the same date believed to be perfect, but whether either or both have now disappeared I cannot say. Nor have I been able to verify the existence or non-existence of the other examples of which I am able to give illustrations. I shall therefore write of them all in the past tense, retaining the hope that some are still preserved.
There was a maze at Comberton in Cambridgeshire, and another one, known locally as the "miz-maze," at Leigh in Dorset. The latter was located on the highest part of a field at the top of a hill, a quarter of a mile from the village, and it had a slight dip in the center, surrounded by a bank about 3 feet high. It was circular and about thirty paces across. By 1868, the grass had grown over the small trenches, making it impossible to see the paths of the maze. The Comberton maze was thought to be intact at the same time, but I can't say if either or both have since vanished. I've also been unable to confirm the existence or absence of the other examples I can illustrate. Therefore, I will discuss them all in the past tense, hoping that some are still preserved.

In the next two mazes given—that at Saffron Walden, Essex (110 feet in diameter, Fig. 4), and the one near St. Anne's Well, at Sneinton, Nottinghamshire (Fig. 5), which was ploughed up on February 27th, 1797 (51 feet in diameter, with a path 535 yards long)—the paths must in each case be understood to be on the lines, black or white, as the case may be.
In the next two mazes provided—that at Saffron Walden, Essex (110 feet in diameter, Fig. 4), and the one near St. Anne's Well, at Sneinton, Nottinghamshire (Fig. 5), which was plowed up on February 27th, 1797 (51 feet in diameter, with a path 535 yards long)—the paths should be understood to follow the lines, either black or white, depending on the situation.


I give in Fig. 6 a maze that was at Alkborough, Lincolnshire, overlooking the Humber. This was 44 feet in diameter, and the resemPg 130blance between it and the mazes at Chartres and Lucca (Figs. 2 and 3) will be at once perceived. A maze at Boughton Green, in Nottinghamshire, a place celebrated at one time for its fair (Fig. 7), was 37 feet in diameter. I also include the plan (Fig. 8) of one that used to be on the outskirts of the village of Wing, near Uppingham, Rutlandshire. This maze was 40 feet in diameter.
I present in Fig. 6 a maze located at Alkborough, Lincolnshire, overlooking the Humber. It was 44 feet in diameter, and the similarity between it and the mazes at Chartres and Lucca (Figs. 2 and 3) is immediately noticeable. A maze at Boughton Green in Nottinghamshire, once famous for its fair (Fig. 7), measured 37 feet in diameter. I also include the plan (Fig. 8) of one that used to be on the outskirts of the village of Wing, near Uppingham, Rutlandshire. This maze was 40 feet in diameter.



The maze that was on St. Catherine's Hill, Winchester, in the parish of Chilcombe, was a poor specimen (Fig. 9), since, as will be seen, there was one short direct route to the centre, unless, as in Fig. 10 again, the path is the line itself from end to end. This maze was 86 feet square, cut in the turf, and was locally known as the "Mize-maze." It became very indistinct about 1858, and was then recut by the Warden of Winchester, with the aid of a plan possessed by a lady living in the neighbourhood.
The maze on St. Catherine's Hill in Winchester, located in the parish of Chilcombe, was not very impressive (Fig. 9), as it featured just one short and direct path to the center, unless, as shown in Fig. 10, the path itself ran straight from one end to the other. This maze measured 86 feet square, carved into the grass, and was locally referred to as the "Mize-maze." It became quite faint around 1858 and was then redone by the Warden of Winchester, with help from a plan owned by a woman living in the area.

A maze formerly existed on Ripon Common, in Yorkshire (Fig. 10). It was ploughed up in 1827, but its plan was fortunately preserved. This example was 20 yards in diameter, and its path is said to have been 407 yards long.
A maze used to be on Ripon Common in Yorkshire (Fig. 10). It was plowed up in 1827, but luckily, its layout was saved. This maze was 20 yards wide, and its path is said to have been 407 yards long.

In the case of the maze at Theobalds, Hertfordshire, after you have found the entrance within the four enclosing hedges, the path is Pg 131forced (Fig. 11). As further illustrations of this class of maze, I give one taken from an Italian work on architecture by Serlio, published in 1537 (Fig. 12), and one by London and Wise, the designers of the Hampton Court maze, from their book, The Retired Gard'ner, published in 1706 (Fig. 13). Also, I add a Dutch maze (Fig. 14).
In the maze at Theobalds, Hertfordshire, once you find the entrance within the four surrounding hedges, the path is Pg 131forced (Fig. 11). To illustrate this type of maze further, I've included one from an Italian architectural work by Serlio, published in 1537 (Fig. 12), and another by London and Wise, the creators of the Hampton Court maze, from their book, The Retired Gard'ner, published in 1706 (Fig. 13). Additionally, I’ve included a Dutch maze (Fig. 14).



So far our mazes have been of historical interest, but they have presented no difficulty in threading. After the Reformation period we find mazes converted into mediums for recreation, and they generally consisted of labyrinthine paths enclosed by thick and carefully trimmed hedges. These topiary hedges were known to the Romans, with whom the topiarius was the ornamental gardener. This type of maze has of late years degenerated into the seaside "Puzzle Gardens. Teas, sixpence, including admission to the Maze." The Hampton Court Maze, sometimes called the "Wilderness," at the royal palace, was designed, as I have said, by London and Wise for William III., who had a liking for such things (Fig. 15). I have before me some three or four versions of it, all slightly different from one another; but the plan I select is taken from an old guide-book to the palace, and therefore ought to be trustworthy. The meaning of the dotted lines, etc., will be explained later on.
So far, our mazes have been of historical interest, but they haven't been difficult to navigate. After the Reformation period, mazes became spaces for recreation, typically made up of winding paths surrounded by thick, well-trimmed hedges. These ornamental hedges were known to the Romans, who called the gardener responsible for them a topiarius. Recently, this type of maze has turned into seaside "Puzzle Gardens." Entry was often sixpence, which included admission to the Maze. The Hampton Court Maze, sometimes referred to as the "Wilderness," at the royal palace was designed, as I mentioned, by London and Wise for William III, who had an affinity for such designs (Fig. 15). I have in front of me three or four different versions of it, all slightly varying from each other; however, the plan I've chosen is from an old guidebook to the palace and should therefore be reliable. The meaning of the dotted lines, etc., will be explained later on.


The maze at Hatfield House (Fig. 16), the seat of the Marquis of Salisbury, like so many labyrinths, is not difficult on paper; but both Pg 132this and the Hampton Court Maze may prove very puzzling to actually thread without knowing the plan. One reason is that one is so apt to go down the same blind alleys over and over again, if one proceeds without method. The maze planned by the desire of the Prince Consort for the Royal Horticultural Society's Gardens at South Kensington was allowed to go to ruin, and was then destroyed—no great loss, for it was a feeble thing. It will be seen that there were three entrances from the outside (Fig. 17), but the way to the centre is very easy to discover. I include a German maze that is curious, but not difficult to thread on paper (Fig. 18). The example of a labyrinth formerly existing at Pimperne, in Dorset, is in a class by itself (Fig. 19). It was formed of small ridges about a foot high, and covered nearly an Pg 133acre of ground; but it was, unfortunately, ploughed up in 1730.
The maze at Hatfield House (Fig. 16), the home of the Marquis of Salisbury, like many labyrinths, seems easy to navigate on paper; however, both this and the Hampton Court Maze can be quite confusing to actually walk through without a map. One reason is that it's easy to keep hitting the same dead ends over and over again if you don't have a strategy. The maze designed by the Prince Consort for the Royal Horticultural Society's Gardens at South Kensington ended up falling into disrepair and was ultimately destroyed—not that it was a significant loss, as it was rather uninspired. You'll see there were three entrances from the outside (Fig. 17), but finding your way to the center is pretty straightforward. I’m also including a German maze that’s interesting, though not hard to navigate on paper (Fig. 18). The example of a labyrinth that used to be in Pimperne, Dorset, is unique (Fig. 19). It consisted of small mounds about a foot high, covering nearly an Pg 133acre of land, but sadly, it was plowed over in 1730.



We will now pass to the interesting subject of how to thread any maze. While being necessarily brief, I will try to make the matter clear to readers who have no knowledge of mathematics. And first of all we will assume that we are trying to enter a maze (that is, get to the "centre") of which we have no plan and about which we know nothing. The first rule is this: If a maze has no parts of its hedges detached from the rest, then if we always keep in touch with the hedge with the right hand (or always touch it with the left), going down to the stop in every blind alley and coming back on the other side, we shall pass through every part of the maze and make our exit where we went in. Therefore we must at one time or another enter the centre, and every alley will be traversed twice.
We will now move on to the interesting topic of how to navigate any maze. While I need to be brief, I’ll try to make this clear for readers who aren’t familiar with mathematics. First, let’s assume we’re trying to enter a maze (that is, reach the "center") with no map and no prior knowledge about it. The first rule is this: If a maze doesn’t have any sections of its walls that are separate from the rest, then if we always keep one hand in contact with the wall on our right (or keep it on the left), and go all the way to the end of every dead end before coming back, we will cover every part of the maze and exit at the same point we entered. So, at some point, we will definitely reach the center, and each path will be traveled twice.
Now look at the Hampton Court plan. Follow, say to the right, the path indicated by the Pg 134dotted line, and what I have said is clearly correct if we obliterate the two detached parts, or "islands," situated on each side of the star. But as these islands are there, you cannot by this method traverse every part of the maze; and if it had been so planned that the "centre" was, like the star, between the two islands, you would never pass through the "centre" at all. A glance at the Hatfield maze will show that there are three of these detached hedges or islands at the centre, so this method will never take you to the "centre" of that one. But the rule will at least always bring you safely out again unless you blunder in the following way. Suppose, when you were going in the direction of the arrow in the Hampton Court Maze, that you could not distinctly see the turning at the bottom, that you imagined you were in a blind alley and, to save time, crossed at once to the opposite hedge, then you would go round and round that U-shaped island with your right hand still always on the hedge—for ever after!
Now take a look at the Hampton Court plan. Follow, let's say to the right, the path indicated by the Pg 134dotted line, and what I said is clearly correct if we ignore the two separate parts, or "islands," on either side of the star. But since these islands are there, you can't navigate every section of the maze this way; and if it had been designed so that the "center" was, like the star, between the two islands, you would never reach the "center" at all. A quick look at the Hatfield maze will show that there are three of these separate hedges or islands in the center, so this method will never get you to the "center" of that one. However, the rule will at least always guide you out safely unless you make a mistake like this. Imagine, while you’re heading in the direction of the arrow in the Hampton Court Maze, that you can't clearly see the turn at the bottom, and you think you’re in a dead end. To save time, you quickly cross to the opposite hedge; then you would end up going around and around that U-shaped island with your right hand always touching the hedge—forever!
This blunder happened to me a few years ago in a little maze on the isle of Caldy, South Wales. I knew the maze was a small one, but after a very long walk I was amazed to find that I did not either reach the "centre" or get out again. So I threw a piece of paper on the ground, and soon came round to it; from which I knew that I had blundered over a supposed blind alley and was going round and round an island. Crossing to the opposite hedge and using more care, I was quickly at the centre and out again. Now, if I had made a similar mistake at Hampton Court, and discovered the error when at the star, I should merely have passed from one island to another! And if I had again discovered that I was on a detached part, I might with ill luck have recrossed to the first island again! We thus see that this "touching the hedge" method should always bring us safely out of a maze that we have entered; it may happen to take us through the "centre," and if we miss the centre we shall know there must be islands. But it has to be Pg 135done with a little care, and in no case can we be sure that we have traversed every alley or that there are no detached parts.
A few years ago, I made this mistake in a small maze on the isle of Caldy, South Wales. I knew the maze was tiny, but after a long walk, I was shocked to find that I hadn’t reached the "center" or found a way out. So, I dropped a piece of paper on the ground and soon came back to it; that’s when I realized I had gone down what I thought was a dead end and was just going in circles around an island. By crossing to the opposite hedge and being more careful, I quickly found the center and got out. Now, if I had made a similar mistake at Hampton Court and noticed it when I was at the star, I would have just gone from one island to another! And if I realized I was on a separate section again, I might have, unfortunately, crossed back to the first island! This shows that the "touching the hedge" method should always lead us safely out of a maze we’ve entered; it might take us through the "center," and if we miss it, we’ll know there are islands. But it requires a bit of caution, and we can’t be sure that we have explored every path or that there aren’t any separate parts. Pg 135

If the maze has many islands, the traversing of the whole of it may be a matter of considerable difficulty. Here is a method for solving any maze, due to M. Trémaux, but it necessitates carefully marking in some way your entrances and exits where the galleries fork. I give a diagram of an imaginary maze of a very simple character that will serve our purpose just as well as something more complex (Fig. 20). The circles at the regions where we have a choice of turnings we may call nodes. A "new" path or node is one that has not been entered before on the route; an "old" path or node is one that has already been entered, 1. No path may be traversed more than twice. 2. When you come to a new node, take any path you like. 3. When by a new path you come to an old node or to the stop of a blind alley, return by the path you came. 4. When by an old path you come to an old node, take a new path if there is one; if not, an old path. The route indicated by the dotted line in the diagram is taken in accordance with these simple rules, and it will be seen that it leads us to the centre, although the maze consists of four islands.
If the maze has many islands, navigating through it can be quite difficult. Here's a method for solving any maze, developed by M. Trémaux, but it requires you to carefully mark your entrances and exits where the paths split. I've illustrated a simple imaginary maze that will work just as well as a more complex one (Fig. 20). We can refer to the points where we have a choice of turns as nodes. A "new" path or node is one that you haven’t taken before on your route; an "old" path or node is one that you've already visited. 1. No path can be crossed more than twice. 2. When you reach a new node, choose any path you want. 3. If you reach an old node or the end of a dead end via a new path, return the way you came. 4. If you arrive at an old node via an old path, take a new path if one exists; if not, take an old path. The route shown by the dotted line in the diagram follows these simple rules, and it leads us to the center, even though the maze contains four islands.

Pg 136Neither of the methods I have given will disclose to us the shortest way to the centre, nor the number of the different routes. But we can easily settle these points with a plan. Let us take the Hatfield maze (Fig. 21). It will be seen that I have suppressed all the blind alleys by the shading. I begin at the stop and work backwards until the path forks. These shaded parts, therefore, can never be entered without our having to retrace our steps. Then it is very clearly seen that if we enter at A we must come out at B; if we enter at C we must come out at D. Then we have merely to determine whether A, B, E, or C, D, E, is the shorter route. As a matter of fact, it will be found by rough measurement or calculation that the shortest route to the centre is by way of C, D, E, F.
Pg 136Neither of the methods I've mentioned will show us the quickest way to the center, nor the number of different paths. However, we can easily clarify these points with a plan. Let's look at the Hatfield maze (Fig. 21). You can see that I've marked all the dead ends with shading. I start at the end and work backwards until I reach the point where the path splits. This shading means that those areas can never be entered without having to go back. It's then clear that if we enter at A, we must exit at B; if we enter at C, we must exit at D. All we need to do is figure out whether A, B, E, or C, D, E is the shorter route. In fact, a quick measurement or calculation will show that the shortest route to the center is through C, D, E, F.
I will now give three mazes that are simply puzzles on paper, for, so far as I know, they have never been constructed in any other way. The first I will call the Philadelphia maze (Fig. 22). Fourteen years ago a travelling salesman, Pg 137living in Philadelphia, U.S.A., developed a curiously unrestrained passion for puzzles. He neglected his business, and soon his position was taken from him. His days and nights were now passed with the subject that fascinated him, and this little maze seems to have driven him into insanity. He had been puzzling over it for some time, and finally it sent him mad and caused him to fire a bullet through his brain. Goodness knows what his difficulties could have been! But there can be little doubt that he had a disordered mind, and that if this little puzzle had not caused him to lose his mental balance some other more or less trivial thing would in time have done so. There is no moral in the story, unless it be that of the Irish maxim, which applies to every occupation of life as much as to the solving of puzzles: "Take things aisy; if you can't take them aisy, take them as aisy as you can." And it is a bad and empirical way of solving any puzzle—by blowing your brains out.
I’m going to present three mazes that are just puzzles on paper because, to my knowledge, they’ve never been made in any other form. The first one is called the Philadelphia maze (Fig. 22). Fourteen years ago, a traveling salesman living in Philadelphia, U.S.A., developed an intense obsession with puzzles. He neglected his business, and before long, he lost his job. His days and nights were consumed by this fascination, and this little maze seems to have driven him to madness. After struggling with it for a while, it ultimately sent him over the edge, leading him to take his own life. Who knows what his struggles were? But it’s clear that he had a troubled mind, and if this maze hadn’t unhinged him, something else trivial would’ve eventually done the same. There’s no moral to this story, except perhaps for the Irish saying that’s relevant to every part of life, including solving puzzles: "Take things easy; if you can’t take them easy, take them as easy as you can." It’s a bad and reckless way to solve any puzzle—by ending your life.

Now, how many different routes are there from A to B in this maze if we must never in any route go along the same passage twice? The four open spaces where four passages end are not reckoned as "passages." In the diagram (Fig. 22) it will be seen that I have again suppressed the blind alleys. It will be found that, in any case, we must go from A to C, and also from F to B. But when we have arrived at C there are three ways, marked 1, 2, 3, of getting to D. Similarly, when we get to E there are three ways, marked 4, 5, 6, of getting to F. We have also the dotted route from C to E, the other dotted route from D to F, and the passage from D to E, indicated by stars. We can, therefore, express the position of affairs by the little diagram annexed (Fig. 23). Here every condition of route exactly corresponds to that in the circular maze, only it is much less confusing to the eye. Now, the number of routes, under the conditions, from A to B on this simplified diagram is 640, and that is the required answer to the maze puzzle.
Now, how many different routes are there from A to B in this maze if we can’t travel the same passage twice? The four open spaces where four passages end aren’t counted as "passages." In the diagram (Fig. 22), you’ll see that I’ve removed the dead ends. In any case, we have to go from A to C, and also from F to B. Once we reach C, there are three routes, labeled 1, 2, 3, to get to D. Similarly, when we get to E, there are three routes, labeled 4, 5, 6, to get to F. We also have the dotted route from C to E, another dotted route from D to F, and the passage from D to E marked with stars. Therefore, we can summarize the situation with the diagram attached (Fig. 23). Here, every routing condition matches that in the circular maze, but it is much clearer to understand. Now, the total number of routes, given the conditions, from A to B on this simplified diagram is 640, which is the answer to the maze puzzle.


Finally, I will leave two easy maze puzzles (Figs. 24, 25) for my readers to solve for themselves. The puzzle in each case is to find the shortest possible route to the centre. Everybody knows the story of Fair Rosamund and the Woodstock maze. What the maze was like or whether it ever existed except in imagination is not known, many writers believing that it was simply a badly-constructed house with a large number of confusing rooms and passages. At any rate, my sketch lacks the authority of the other mazes in this article. My "Rosamund's Bower" is simply designed to show that where you have the plan before you it often happens that the easiest way to find a route into a maze is by working backwards and first finding a way out.
Finally, I will leave two easy maze puzzles (Figs. 24, 25) for my readers to solve on their own. The challenge in each case is to find the shortest route to the center. Everyone knows the story of Fair Rosamund and the Woodstock maze. What the maze was actually like or if it ever existed outside of imagination is unclear; many writers believe it was just a poorly-designed house with a lot of confusing rooms and corridors. In any case, my sketch doesn’t have the same authority as the other mazes in this article. My "Rosamund's Bower" is simply meant to show that when you have the plan in front of you, it often turns out that the easiest way to find a path into a maze is by working backwards and first figuring out how to get out.

THE PARADOX PARTY.
"Is not life itself a paradox?"
C.L. DODGSON, Pillow Problems.
"Isn't life itself a paradox?"
C.L. Dodgson, *Pillow Problems*.
"It is a wonderful age!" said Mr. Allgood, and everybody at the table turned towards him and assumed an attitude of expectancy.
"It’s a wonderful time!" said Mr. Allgood, and everyone at the table turned to him and took on an expression of anticipation.
This was an ordinary Christmas dinner of the Allgood family, with a sprinkling of local friends. Nobody would have supposed that the above remark would lead, as it did, to a succession of curious puzzles and paradoxes, to which every member of the party contributed something of interest. The little symposium was quite unpremeditated, so we must not be too critical respecting a few of the posers that were forthcoming. The varied character of the contributions is just what we would expect on such an occasion, for it was a gathering not of expert mathematicians and logicians, but of quite ordinary folk.
This was a typical Christmas dinner for the Allgood family, with a few local friends joining in. No one would have guessed that the comment made would lead to a series of interesting puzzles and paradoxes, with each person at the table adding something intriguing. The little discussion was completely spontaneous, so we shouldn’t be too harsh about some of the questions raised. The diverse nature of the contributions is exactly what we would expect at such an event, as it was a gathering of regular people, not expert mathematicians or logicians.
"It is a wonderful age!" repeated Mr. Allgood. "A man has just designed a square house in such a cunning manner that all the windows on the four sides have a south aspect."
"It’s a fantastic time!" Mr. Allgood said again. "Someone just designed a square house in such a clever way that all the windows on the four sides face south."
"That would appeal to me," said Mrs. Allgood, "for I cannot endure a room with a north aspect."
"That sounds great to me," said Mrs. Allgood, "because I can't stand a room that faces north."
"I cannot conceive how it is done," Uncle John confessed. "I suppose he puts bay windows on the east and west sides; but how on earth can be contrive to look south from the north side? Does he use mirrors, or something of that kind?"
"I can't understand how it's done," Uncle John admitted. "I guess he puts bay windows on the east and west sides; but how on earth can he manage to look south from the north side? Does he use mirrors or something like that?"
"No," replied Mr. Allgood, "nothing of the sort. All the windows are flush with the walls, and yet you get a southerly prospect from every one of them. You see, there is no real difficulty in designing the house if you select the proper spot for its erection. Now, this house is designed for a gentleman who proposes to build it exactly at the North Pole. If you think a moment you will realize that when you stand at the North Pole it is impossible, no matter which way you may turn, to look elsewhere than due south! There are no such directions as north, east, or west when you are exactly at the North Pole. Everything is due south!"
"No," Mr. Allgood replied, "nothing like that. All the windows are level with the walls, and still, you get a southern view from each one. You see, designing the house isn’t really challenging if you choose the right location for it. Now, this house is meant for a gentleman who plans to build it right at the North Pole. If you think about it for a second, you’ll realize that when you stand at the North Pole, no matter which way you turn, you can only look straight south! There aren’t any directions like north, east, or west when you’re directly at the North Pole. Everything is straight south!"
"I am afraid, mother," said her son George, after the laughter had subsided, "that, however much you might like the aspect, the situation would be a little too bracing for you."
"I’m afraid, Mom," said her son George, after the laughter had died down, "that, no matter how much you might like the view, the conditions would be a bit too harsh for you."
"Ah, well!" she replied. "Your Uncle John fell also into the trap. I am no good at catches and puzzles. I suppose I haven't the right sort of brain. Perhaps some one will explain this to me. Only last week I remarked to my hairdresser that it had been said that there are more persons in the world than any one of them has hairs on his head. He replied, 'Then it follows, madam, that two persons, at least, must have exactly the same number of Pg 138hairs on their heads.' If this is a fact, I confess I cannot see it."
"Well!" she said. "Your Uncle John also fell for the trap. I'm not good with riddles and puzzles. I guess I don't have the right kind of brain. Maybe someone will explain this to me. Just last week, I told my hairdresser that it’s been said there are more people in the world than anyone has hairs on their head. He replied, 'So, it follows, madam, that at least two people must have exactly the same number of Pg 138hairs on their heads.' If that’s true, I honestly can’t see it."
"How do the bald-headed affect the question?" asked Uncle John.
"How do the bald-headed people influence the question?" asked Uncle John.
"If there are such persons in existence," replied Mrs. Allgood, "who haven't a solitary hair on their heads discoverable under a magnifying-glass, we will leave them out of the question. Still, I don't see how you are to prove that at least two persons have exactly the same number to a hair."
"If there are people like that," Mrs. Allgood replied, "who don’t have a single hair on their heads that you can see even with a magnifying glass, we can skip them. Still, I don’t understand how you’re going to prove that at least two people have exactly the same number of hairs."
"I think I can make it clear," said Mr. Filkins, who had dropped in for the evening. "Assume the population of the world to be only one million. Any number will do as well as another. Then your statement was to the effect that no person has more than nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine hairs on his head. Is that so?"
"I think I can clarify this," said Mr. Filkins, who had come by for the evening. "Let's assume the world's population is just one million. Any number works just as well. So, your claim was that no person has more than nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine hairs on their head. Is that correct?"
"Let me think," said Mrs. Allgood. "Yes—yes—that is correct."
"Let me think," said Mrs. Allgood. "Yes—yes—that's right."
"Very well, then. As there are only nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine different ways of bearing hair, it is clear that the millionth person must repeat one of those ways. Do you see?"
"Okay, then. Since there are only nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine different ways to style hair, it's obvious that the millionth person has to use one of those styles again. Got it?"
"Yes; I see that—at least I think I see it."
"Yeah; I get that—at least I think I do."
"Therefore two persons at least must have the same number of hairs on their heads; and as the number of people on the earth so greatly exceeds the number of hairs on any one person's head, there must, of course, be an immense number of these repetitions."
"Therefore, at least two people must have the same number of hairs on their heads; and since the number of people on Earth far exceeds the number of hairs on any one person's head, there must be an enormous number of these repetitions."
"But, Mr. Filkins," said little Willie Allgood, "why could not the millionth man have, say, ten thousand hairs and a half?"
"But, Mr. Filkins," said little Willie Allgood, "why couldn't the millionth man have, like, ten thousand hairs and a half?"
"That is mere hair-splitting, Willie, and does not come into the question."
"That's just nitpicking, Willie, and isn't relevant to the issue."
"Here is a curious paradox," said George. "If a thousand soldiers are drawn up in battle array on a plane"—they understood him to mean "plain"—"only one man will stand upright."
"Here is a strange paradox," George said. "If a thousand soldiers are lined up for battle on a plain"—they understood him to mean "plain"—"only one man will stand upright."
Nobody could see why. But George explained that, according to Euclid, a plane can touch a sphere only at one point, and that person only who stands at that point, with respect to the centre of the earth, will stand upright.
Nobody could understand why. But George explained that, according to Euclid, a plane can touch a sphere at only one point, and that person who stands at that point, in relation to the center of the earth, will stand upright.
"In the same way," he remarked, "if a billiard-table were quite level—that is, a perfect plane—the balls ought to roll to the centre."
"In the same way," he said, "if a billiard table were completely flat—that is, a perfect surface—the balls should roll to the center."
Though he tried to explain this by placing a visiting-card on an orange and expounding the law of gravitation, Mrs. Allgood declined to accept the statement. She could not see that the top of a true billiard-table must, theoretically, be spherical, just like a portion of the orange-peel that George cut out. Of course, the table is so small in proportion to the surface of the earth that the curvature is not appreciable, but it is nevertheless true in theory. A surface that we call level is not the same as our idea of a true geometrical plane.
Though he tried to explain this by putting a business card on an orange and discussing the law of gravitation, Mrs. Allgood refused to accept his explanation. She couldn't understand that the top of an actual billiard table must, in theory, be spherical, just like the piece of orange peel that George cut out. Sure, the table is so small compared to the surface of the earth that the curvature isn't noticeable, but it's still true in theory. A surface that we consider level isn't the same as our concept of a true geometric plane.
"Uncle John," broke in Willie Allgood, "there is a certain island situated between England and France, and yet that island is farther from France than England is. What is the island?"
"Uncle John," interrupted Willie Allgood, "there's an island located between England and France, yet that island is farther from France than it is from England. What’s the name of the island?"
"That seems absurd, my boy; because if I place this tumbler, to represent the island, between these two plates, it seems impossible that the tumbler can be farther from either of the plates than they are from each other."
"That seems ridiculous, my boy; because if I put this glass, to represent the island, between these two plates, it seems impossible that the glass can be farther from either of the plates than they are from each other."
"But isn't Guernsey between England and France?" asked Willie.
"But isn't Guernsey located between England and France?" asked Willie.
"Yes, certainly."
"Absolutely."
"Well, then, I think you will find, uncle, that Guernsey is about twenty-six miles from France, and England is only twenty-one miles from France, between Calais and Dover."
"Well, I believe you'll find, uncle, that Guernsey is roughly twenty-six miles from France, and England is just twenty-one miles from France, between Calais and Dover."
"My mathematical master," said George, "has been trying to induce me to accept the axiom that 'if equals be multiplied by equals the products are equal.'"
"My math teacher," said George, "has been trying to get me to accept the idea that 'if you multiply equals by equals, the results are equal.'"
"It is self-evident," pointed out Mr. Filkins. "For example, if 3 feet equal 1 yard, then twice 3 feet will equal 2 yards. Do you see?"
"It’s obvious," Mr. Filkins pointed out. "For example, if 3 feet is equal to 1 yard, then twice 3 feet will equal 2 yards. Do you get it?"
"But, Mr. Filkins," asked George, "is this tumbler half full of water equal to a similar glass half empty?"
"But, Mr. Filkins," asked George, "is this tumbler half full of water the same as a similar glass that's half empty?"
"Certainly, George."
"Of course, George."
"Then it follows from the axiom that a glass full must equal a glass empty. Is that correct?"
"Then it follows from the principle that a full glass must equal an empty glass. Is that true?"
"No, clearly not. I never thought of it in that light."
"No, definitely not. I never saw it that way."
"Perhaps," suggested Mr. Allgood, "the rule does not apply to liquids."
"Maybe," Mr. Allgood suggested, "the rule doesn't apply to liquids."
"Just what I was thinking, Allgood. It would seem that we must make an exception in the case of liquids."
"Exactly what I was thinking, Allgood. It looks like we need to make an exception for liquids."
"But it would be awkward," said George, with a smile, "if we also had to except the case of solids. For instance, let us take the solid earth. One mile square equals one square mile. Therefore two miles square must equal two square miles. Is this so?"
"But that would be awkward," George said with a smile, "if we also had to make an exception for solids. For example, let’s consider the solid earth. One mile square is the same as one square mile. So, two miles square must be equal to two square miles. Is that correct?"
"Well, let me see! No, of course not," Mr. Filkins replied, "because two miles square is four square miles."
"Well, let me think! No, of course not," Mr. Filkins replied, "because two miles by two miles is four square miles."
"Then," said George, "if the axiom is not true in these cases, when is it true?"
"Then," said George, "if the statement isn't true in these cases, when is it true?"
Mr. Filkins promised to look into the matter, and perhaps the reader will also like to give it consideration at leisure.
Mr. Filkins promised to look into the issue, and maybe the reader would also like to think about it in their own time.
"Look here, George," said his cousin Reginald Woolley: "by what fractional part does four-fourths exceed three-fourths?"
"Look here, George," said his cousin Reginald Woolley, "by what fraction does four-fourths exceed three-fourths?"
"By one-fourth!" shouted everybody at once.
"By a quarter!" everyone shouted together.
"Try another one," George suggested.
"Try another one," George said.
"With pleasure, when you have answered that one correctly," was Reginald's reply.
"Sure, once you get that one right," was Reginald's reply.
"Do you mean to say that it isn't one-fourth?"
"Are you trying to say that it’s not one-fourth?"
"Certainly I do."
"Of course, I do."
Several members of the company failed to see that the correct answer is "one-third," although Reginald tried to explain that three of anything, if increased by one-third, becomes four.
Several members of the company didn’t realize that the correct answer is "one-third," even though Reginald tried to explain that three of anything, when increased by one-third, becomes four.
"Uncle John, how do you pronounce 't-o-o'?" asked Willie.
"Uncle John, how do you say 't-o-o'?" asked Willie.
"'Too," my boy."
"Me too," my boy."
"And how do you pronounce 't-w-o'?"
"And how do you say 't-w-o'?"
"That is also 'too.'"
"That is also 'too.'"
"Well, that I should pronounce 'Tuesday,' not 'Toosday.'"
"Well, I should say 'Tuesday,' not 'Toosday.'"
"Would you really? I should pronounce it 'Monday.'"
"Would you actually? I should say it 'Monday.'"
"If you go on like this, Willie," said Uncle John, with mock severity, "you will soon be without a friend in the world."
"If you keep this up, Willie," Uncle John said, pretending to be serious, "you'll soon have no friends left in the world."
"Can any of you write down quickly in figures 'twelve thousand twelve hundred and twelve pounds'?" asked Mr. Allgood.
"Can any of you quickly write down '12,212 pounds'?" asked Mr. Allgood.
His eldest daughter, Miss Mildred, was the only person who happened to have a pencil at hand.
His oldest daughter, Miss Mildred, was the only one who happened to have a pencil available.
"It can't be done," she declared, after making an attempt on the white table-cloth; but Mr. Allgood showed her that it should be written, "£13,212."
"It can't be done," she said, after trying on the white tablecloth; but Mr. Allgood showed her that it should be written, "£13,212."
"Now it is my turn," said Mildred. "I have been waiting to ask you all a question. In the Massacre of the Innocents under Herod, a number of poor little children were buried in the sand with only their feet sticking out. How might you distinguish the boys from the girls?"
"Now it's my turn," said Mildred. "I've been waiting to ask you all a question. In the Massacre of the Innocents under Herod, a bunch of poor little kids were buried in the sand with just their feet sticking out. How would you tell the boys apart from the girls?"
"I suppose," said Mrs. Allgood, "it is a conundrum—something to do with their poor little 'souls.'"
"I guess," said Mrs. Allgood, "it's a puzzle—something about their poor little 'souls.'"
But after everybody had given it up, Mildred reminded the company that only boys were put to death.
But after everyone had given up, Mildred reminded the group that only boys were put to death.
"Once upon a time," began George, "Achilles had a race with a tortoise—"
"Once upon a time," George started, "Achilles had a race with a tortoise—"
"Stop, George!" interposed Mr. Allgood. "We won't have that one. I knew two men in my youth who were once the best of friends, but they quarrelled over that infernal thing of Zeno's, and they never spoke to one another again for the rest of their lives. I draw the line at that, and the other stupid thing by Zeno about the flying arrow. I don't believe anybody understands them, because I could never do so myself."
"Stop, George!" interrupted Mr. Allgood. "We’re not doing that one. I knew two guys when I was younger who were the best of friends, but they argued over that ridiculous Zeno's paradox, and they never talked again for the rest of their lives. I won’t stand for that, or the other nonsense by Zeno about the flying arrow. I don’t think anyone really gets them, because I could never wrap my head around them myself."
"Oh, very well, then, father. Here is another. The Post-Office people were about to erect a line of telegraph-posts over a high hill from Turmitville to Wurzleton; but as it was found that a railway company was making a deep level cutting in the same direction, they arranged to put up the posts beside the line. Now, the posts were to be a hundred yards apart, the length of the road over the hill being five miles, and the length of the level cutting only four and a half miles. How many posts did they save by erecting them on the level?"
"Oh, very well, then, Dad. Here’s another one. The Post Office was about to set up a line of telegraph poles over a high hill from Turmitville to Wurzleton; but since a railway company was making a deep cutting in the same direction, they decided to place the poles alongside the railway line. Now, the poles were supposed to be a hundred yards apart, with the distance over the hill being five miles and the cutting measuring only four and a half miles. How many poles did they save by putting them up in the cutting?"
"That is a very simple matter of calculation," said Mr. Filkins. "Find how many times one hundred yards will go in five miles, and how many times in four and a half miles. Then deduct one from the other, and you have the number of posts saved by the shorter route."
"That's a really straightforward calculation," said Mr. Filkins. "Figure out how many times one hundred yards fits into five miles, and how many times it fits into four and a half miles. Then subtract one from the other, and you'll get the number of posts saved by taking the shorter route."
"Quite right," confirmed Mr. Allgood. "Nothing could be easier."
"You're absolutely right," agreed Mr. Allgood. "It couldn’t be simpler."
"That is just what the Post-Office people said," replied George, "but it is quite wrong. If you look at this sketch that I have just made, you will see that there is no difference whatever. If the posts are a hundred yards apart, just the same number will be required on the level as over the surface of the hill."
"That's exactly what the Post Office people said," George replied, "but that's totally wrong. If you check out this sketch I just made, you'll see there's absolutely no difference. If the posts are a hundred yards apart, the same number will be needed on flat ground as on the hillside."

"Surely you must be wrong, George," said Mrs. Allgood, "for if the posts are a hundred yards apart and it is half a mile farther over the hill, you have to put up posts on that extra half-mile."
"You're definitely mistaken, George," Mrs. Allgood said. "If the posts are a hundred yards apart and it's half a mile further over the hill, you need to put up posts along that extra half-mile."
"Look at the diagram, mother. You will see that the distance from post to post is not the distance from base to base measured along the ground. I am just the same distance from you if I stand on this spot on the carpet or stand immediately above it on the chair."
"Look at the diagram, Mom. You'll see that the distance from post to post isn't the same as the distance from base to base measured along the ground. I'm the same distance from you whether I'm standing here on the carpet or sitting right above it on the chair."
But Mrs. Allgood was not convinced.
But Mrs. Allgood was skeptical.
Mr. Smoothly, the curate, at the end of the table, said at this point that he had a little question to ask.
Mr. Smoothly, the curate, at the end of the table, said at this point that he had a quick question to ask.
"Suppose the earth were a perfect sphere with a smooth surface, and a girdle of steel were placed round the Equator so that it touched at every point."
"Imagine if the Earth were a perfect sphere with a smooth surface, and a band of steel was wrapped around the Equator so that it made contact at every point."
"'I'll put a girdle round about the earth in forty minutes,'" muttered George, quoting the words of Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
"'I'll put a belt around the earth in forty minutes,'" muttered George, quoting Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
"Now, if six yards were added to the length of the girdle, what would then be the distance between the girdle and the earth, supposing that distance to be equal all round?"
"Now, if six yards were added to the length of the belt, what would be the distance between the belt and the ground, assuming that distance is the same all around?"
"In such a great length," said Mr. Allgood, "I do not suppose the distance would be worth mentioning."
"In such a long distance," Mr. Allgood said, "I don't think the distance is worth mentioning."
"What do you say, George?" asked Mr. Smoothly.
"What do you think, George?" asked Mr. Smoothly.
"Well, without calculating I should imagine it would be a very minute fraction of an inch."
"Well, without measuring it, I’d guess it’s just a tiny fraction of an inch."
Reginald and Mr. Filkins were of the same opinion.
Reginald and Mr. Filkins shared the same view.
"I think it will surprise you all," said the curate, "to learn that those extra six yards would make the distance from the earth all round the girdle very nearly a yard!"
"I think it will surprise you all," said the curate, "to find out that those extra six yards would bring the total distance around the earth to almost a yard!"
"Very nearly a yard!" everybody exclaimed, with astonishment; but Mr. Smoothly was quite correct. The increase is independent of the original length of the girdle, which may be round the earth or round an orange; in any case the additional six yards will give a distance of nearly a yard all round. This is apt to surprise the non-mathematical mind.
"Very nearly a yard!" everyone exclaimed, astonished; but Mr. Smoothly was absolutely right. The increase doesn't depend on the original length of the belt, whether it's around the Earth or around an orange; in either case, the extra six yards will create a distance of almost a yard all around. This tends to surprise those who aren't mathematically inclined.
"Did you hear the story of the extraordinary precocity of Mrs. Perkins's baby that died last week?" asked Mrs. Allgood. "It was only three months old, and lying at the point of death, when the grief-stricken mother asked the doctor if nothing could save it. 'Absolutely nothing!' said the doctor. Then the infant looked up pitifully into its mother's face and said—absolutely nothing!"
"Did you hear about the incredible intelligence of Mrs. Perkins's baby that died last week?" asked Mrs. Allgood. "It was only three months old and lying at death's door when the heartbroken mother asked the doctor if there was anything that could save it. 'Absolutely nothing!' replied the doctor. Then the baby looked up sadly at its mother's face and said—absolutely nothing!"
"Impossible!" insisted Mildred. "And only three months old!"
"That's impossible!" Mildred insisted. "And it's only three months old!"
"Positive," replied the lady. "But do you really think it astonishing that a child of three months should say absolutely nothing? What would you expect it to say?"
"Definitely," the lady replied. "But do you honestly find it surprising that a three-month-old child wouldn’t say anything at all? What do you think it could possibly say?"
"Speaking of death," said Mr. Smoothly, solemnly, "I knew two men, father and son, who died in the same battle during the South African War. They were both named Andrew Johnson and buried side by side, but there was some difficulty in distinguishing them on the headstones. What would you have done?"
"Speaking of death," Mr. Smoothly said seriously, "I knew two guys, a father and son, who died in the same battle during the South African War. They were both named Andrew Johnson and buried next to each other, but it was tricky to tell them apart on the headstones. What would you have done?"
"Quite simple," said Mr. Allgood. "They should have described one as 'Andrew Johnson, Senior,' and the other as 'Andrew Johnson, Junior.'"
"Pretty simple," said Mr. Allgood. "They should have labeled one as 'Andrew Johnson, Senior,' and the other as 'Andrew Johnson, Junior.'"
"But I forgot to tell you that the father died first."
"But I forgot to mention that the father died first."
"What difference can that make?"
"What difference does that make?"
"Well, you see, they wanted to be absolutely exact, and that was the difficulty."
"Well, you see, they wanted to be completely precise, and that was the challenge."
"But I don't see any difficulty," said Mr. Allgood, nor could anybody else.
"But I don't see any problem," said Mr. Allgood, and neither could anyone else.
"Well," explained Mr. Smoothly, "it is like this. If the father died first, the son was then no longer 'Junior.' Is that so?"
"Well," Mr. Smoothly explained, "here's the thing. If the father passed away first, the son was no longer 'Junior.' Is that right?"
"To be strictly exact, yes."
"To be precise, yes."
"That is just what they wanted—to be strictly exact. Now, if he was no longer 'Junior,' then he did not die 'Junior." Consequently it must be incorrect so to describe him on the headstone. Do you see the point?"
"That's exactly what they wanted—to be completely precise. Now, if he was no longer 'Junior,' then he didn't die as 'Junior.' So, it must be wrong to label him that way on the headstone. Do you see the point?"
"Here is a rather curious thing," said Mr. Filkins, "that I have just remembered. A man wrote to me the other day that he had recently discovered two old coins while digging in his garden. One was dated '51 B.C.,' and the other one marked 'George I.' How do I know that he was not writing the truth?"
"Here's something pretty interesting," said Mr. Filkins, "that I just remembered. A guy wrote to me the other day saying he recently found two old coins while digging in his garden. One was dated '51 B.C.' and the other was marked 'George I.' How can I be sure he wasn't telling the truth?"
"Perhaps you know the man to be addicted to lying," said Reginald.
"Maybe you know the guy can’t stop lying," Reginald said.
"But that would be no proof that he was not telling the truth in this instance."
"But that wouldn't prove he wasn't telling the truth this time."
"Perhaps," suggested Mildred, "you know that there were no coins made at those dates.
"Maybe," Mildred suggested, "you know that there weren't any coins made at those times.
"On the contrary, they were made at both periods."
"Actually, they were created during both times."
"Were they silver or copper coins?" asked Willie.
"Were they silver or copper coins?" Willie asked.
"My friend did not state, and I really cannot see, Willie, that it makes any difference."
"My friend didn’t say, and I honestly can’t see, Willie, that it makes any difference."
"I see it!" shouted Reginald. "The letters 'B.C.' would never be used on a coin made before the birth of Christ. They never anticipated the event in that way. The letters were only adopted later to denote dates previous to those which we call 'A.D.' That is very good; but I cannot see why the other statement could not be correct."
"I see it!" shouted Reginald. "The letters 'B.C.' would never be used on a coin made before the birth of Christ. They didn’t anticipate the event that way. The letters were only adopted later to mark dates before what we call 'A.D.' That makes sense; but I can't understand why the other statement couldn't be correct."
"Reginald is quite right," said Mr. Filkins, "about the first coin. The second one could not exist, because the first George would never be described in his lifetime as 'George I.'"
"Reginald is absolutely correct," said Mr. Filkins, "about the first coin. The second one wouldn't exist because the first George would never be referred to in his lifetime as 'George I.'"
"Why not?" asked Mrs. Allgood. "He was George I."
"Why not?" asked Mrs. Allgood. "He was George I."
"Yes; but they would not know it until there was a George II."
"Yes, but they wouldn’t realize it until there was a George II."
"Then there was no George II. until George III. came to the throne?"
"Then there was no George II until George III came to the throne?"
"That does not follow. The second George becomes 'George II.' on account of there having been a 'George I.'"
"That doesn’t make sense. The second George is called 'George II.' because there was already a 'George I.'"
"Then the first George was 'George I.' on account of there having been no king of that name before him."
"Then the first George was 'George I.' because there had been no king with that name before him."
"Don't you see, mother," said George Allgood, "we did not call Queen Victoria 'Victoria I.;' but if there is ever a 'Victoria II.,' then she will be known that way."
"Don't you see, Mom," said George Allgood, "we didn't call Queen Victoria 'Victoria I.;' but if there ever is a 'Victoria II.,' she'll be known like that."
"But there have been several Georges, and therefore he was 'George I.' There haven't been several Victorias, so the two cases are not similar."
"But there have been several Georges, so he was 'George I.' There haven't been several Victorias, making the two cases different."
They gave up the attempt to convince Mrs. Allgood, but the reader will, of course, see the point clearly.
They stopped trying to convince Mrs. Allgood, but the reader will, of course, understand the point clearly.
"Here is a question," said Mildred Allgood, "that I should like some of you to settle for me. I am accustomed to buy from our greengrocer bundles of asparagus, each 12 inches in circumference. I always put a tape measure round them to make sure I am getting the full quantity. The other day the man had no large bundles in stock, but handed me instead two small ones, each 6 inches in circumference. 'That is the same thing,' I said, 'and, of course, the price will be the same;' but he insisted that the two bundles together contained more than the large one, and charged me a few pence extra. Now, what I want to know is, which of us was correct? Would the two small bundles contain the same quantity as the large one? Or would they contain more?"
"Here's a question," said Mildred Allgood, "that I’d like some of you to help me with. I'm used to buying bundles of asparagus from our greengrocer that are each 12 inches around. I always measure them with a tape to make sure I'm getting the right amount. The other day, the man didn’t have any large bundles in stock, so he gave me two smaller ones, each 6 inches around. 'That's the same thing,' I said, 'and, of course, the price will be the same;' but he insisted that the two bundles together had more than the large one and charged me a little extra. So, what I want to know is, who was right? Would the two small bundles have the same amount as the large one? Or would they have more?"
"That is the ancient puzzle," said Reginald, laughing, "of the sack of corn that Sempronius borrowed from Caius, which your greengrocer, perhaps, had been reading about somewhere. He caught you beautifully."
"That's the age-old riddle," Reginald said with a laugh, "about the sack of corn that Sempronius borrowed from Caius, which your greengrocer might have read about somewhere. He got you perfectly."
"Then they were equal?"
"Then they were equals?"
"On the contrary, you were both wrong, and you were badly cheated. You only got half the quantity that would have been contained in a large bundle, and therefore ought to have been charged half the original price, instead of more."
"Actually, you were both mistaken, and you were really ripped off. You only received half the amount that would have been in a large bundle, so you should have been charged half the original price, not more."
Yes, it was a bad swindle, undoubtedly. A circle with a circumference half that of another must have its area a quarter that of the other. Therefore the two small bundles contained together only half as much asparagus as a large one.
Yes, it was a bad scam, no doubt about it. A circle with a circumference half that of another must have an area a quarter that of the other. So, the two small bundles together contained only half as much asparagus as a large one.
"Mr. Filkins, can you answer this?" asked Willie. "There is a man in the next village who eats two eggs for breakfast every morning."
"Mr. Filkins, can you answer this?" asked Willie. "There's a guy in the next village who eats two eggs for breakfast every morning."
"Nothing very extraordinary in that," George broke in. "If you told us that the two eggs ate the man it would be interesting."
"Nothing too remarkable about that," George interrupted. "If you said that the two eggs ate the man, that would be interesting."
"Don't interrupt the boy, George," said his mother.
"Don't interrupt him, George," his mother said.
"Does he take them in exchange for something else?" asked Mildred.
"Is he trading them for something else?" Mildred asked.
"That would be bartering them," Willie replied.
"That would be trading them," Willie replied.
"Perhaps some friend sends them to him," suggested Mrs. Allgood.
"Maybe a friend sends them to him," suggested Mrs. Allgood.
"I said that they were not given to him."
"I said that they weren't given to him."
"I know," said George, with confidence. "A strange hen comes into his place and lays them."
"I know," George said confidently. "A strange hen shows up at his place and lays them."
"But that would be finding them, wouldn't it?"
"But that would mean finding them, right?"
"Does he hire them?" asked Reginald.
"Is he hiring them?" Reginald asked.
"If so, he could not return them after they were eaten, so that would be stealing them."
"If that's the case, he couldn't give them back after they were eaten, so that would be stealing."
"Perhaps it is a pun on the word 'lay,'" Mr. Filkins said. "Does he lay them on the table?"
"Maybe it’s a play on the word 'lay,'" Mr. Filkins said. "Does he lay them on the table?"
"He would have to get them first, wouldn't he? The question was, How does he get them?"
"He would need to get them first, right? The question is, how does he get them?"
"Give it up!" said everybody. Then little Willie crept round to the protection of his mother, for George was apt to be rough on such occasions.
"Give it up!" everyone said. Then little Willie climbed around to his mother's side, since George could be rough during moments like that.
"The man keeps ducks!" he cried, "and his servant collects the eggs every morning."
"The guy has ducks!" he exclaimed, "and his assistant gathers the eggs every morning."
"But you said he doesn't keep birds!" George protested.
"But you said he doesn't have birds!" George protested.
"I didn't, did I, Mr. Filkins? I said he doesn't keep hens."
"I didn't, did I, Mr. Filkins? I said he doesn't keep chickens."
"But he finds them," said Reginald.
"But he finds them," Reginald said.
"No; I said his servant finds them."
"No; I said his servant finds them."
"Well, then," Mildred interposed, "his servant gives them to him."
"Well, then," Mildred cut in, "his servant brings them to him."
"You cannot give a man his own property, can you?"
"You can't give a man his own property, can you?"
All agreed that Willie's answer was quite satisfactory. Then Uncle John produced a little fallacy that "brought the proceedings to a close," as the newspapers say.
All agreed that Willie's answer was pretty satisfactory. Then Uncle John brought up a little fallacy that "brought the proceedings to a close," as the newspapers say.

"Here is a diagram of a chessboard," he said. "You see there are sixty-four squares—eight by eight. Now I draw a straight line from the top left-hand corner, where the first and second squares meet, to the bottom right-hand corner. I cut along this line with the scissors, slide up the piece that I have marked B, and then clip off the little corner C by a cut along the first upright line. This little piece will exactly fit into its place at the top, and we now have an oblong with seven squares on one side and nine squares on the other. There are, therefore, now only sixty-three squares, because seven multiplied by nine makes sixty-three. Where on earth does that lost square go to? I have tried over and over again to catch the little beggar, but he always eludes me. For the life of me I cannot discover where he hides himself."
"Here's a diagram of a chessboard," he said. "You can see there are sixty-four squares—eight by eight. Now I draw a straight line from the top left corner, where the first and second squares meet, to the bottom right corner. I cut along this line with the scissors, slide up the piece that I marked B, and then trim off the little corner C by cutting along the first upright line. This little piece will fit perfectly into its place at the top, and now we have a rectangle with seven squares on one side and nine squares on the other. So, we now have only sixty-three squares because seven multiplied by nine equals sixty-three. Where the heck does that missing square go? I've tried over and over again to find that little rascal, but he always manages to slip away. I just can't figure out where he hides."
"It seems to be like the other old chessboard fallacy, and perhaps the explanation is the same," said Reginald—"that the pieces do not exactly fit."
"It seems like the other old chessboard fallacy, and maybe the explanation is the same," said Reginald—"that the pieces just don't fit right."
"But they do fit," said Uncle John. "Try it, and you will see."
"But they do fit," Uncle John said. "Give it a try, and you'll see."
Later in the evening Reginald and George, were seen in a corner with their heads together, trying to catch that elusive little square, and it is only fair to record that before they retired for the night they succeeded in securing their prey, though some others of the company failed to see it when captured. Can the reader solve the little mystery?
Later in the evening, Reginald and George were found in a corner, deep in discussion, trying to catch that elusive little square. It's only fair to mention that before they went to bed, they managed to capture their target, although some others in the group failed to see it when it was caught. Can you solve the little mystery?
UNCLASSIFIED PROBLEMS.
"A snapper up of unconsidered trifles."
Winter's Tale, iv. 2.
"A collector of overlooked little things."
Winter's Tale, Act 4, Scene 2.
Anderson, Biggs, and Carpenter were staying together at a place by the seaside. One day they went out in a boat and were a mile at sea when a rifle was fired on shore in their direction. Why or by whom the shot was fired fortunately does not concern us, as no information on these points is obtainable, but from the facts I picked up we can get material for a curious little puzzle for the novice.
Anderson, Biggs, and Carpenter were staying together at a seaside spot. One day, they went out in a boat and were a mile offshore when a rifle was fired from the shore towards them. The reason for the shot or who fired it luckily doesn’t matter, as we don’t have information on those details, but from what I gathered, we can create an intriguing little puzzle for beginners.
It seems that Anderson only heard the report of the gun, Biggs only saw the smoke, and Carpenter merely saw the bullet strike the water near them. Now, the question arises: Which of them first knew of the discharge of the rifle?
It seems that Anderson only heard the gunshot, Biggs only saw the smoke, and Carpenter only saw the bullet hit the water nearby. Now, the question is: Who of them realized the rifle had been fired first?
There is a certain village in Japan, situated in a very low valley, and yet the sun is nearer to the inhabitants every noon, by 3,000 miles and upwards, than when he either rises or sets to these people. In what part of the country is the village situated?
There is a village in Japan, located in a very low valley, and yet the sun is closer to the residents every noon, by 3,000 miles or more, than when it rises or sets for them. In what part of the country is the village located?
If the end of the world should come on the first day of a new century, can you say what are the chances that it will happen on a Sunday?
If the world were to end on the first day of a new century, can you tell me what the chances are that it would happen on a Sunday?

The illustration represents one of the most ancient of all mechanical puzzles. Its origin is unknown. Cardan, the mathematician, wrote about it in 1550, and Wallis in 1693; while it is said still to be found in obscure English villages (sometimes deposited in strange places, such as a church belfry), made of iron, and appropriately called "tiring-irons," and to be used by the Norwegians to-day as a lock for boxes and bags. In the toyshops it is sometimes called the "Chinese rings," though there seems to be no authority for the description, and it more frequently goes by the unsatisfactory name of "the puzzling rings." The French call it "Baguenaudier."
The illustration shows one of the oldest mechanical puzzles. Its origins are unknown. The mathematician Cardan wrote about it in 1550, and Wallis mentioned it in 1693. It’s said to still be found in obscure English villages (sometimes stored in weird places, like a church belfry), made of iron, and fittingly named "tiring-irons." Today, Norwegians use it as a lock for boxes and bags. In toy shops, it's sometimes called "Chinese rings," although there’s no official reason for that name, and it's more commonly referred to as "the puzzling rings." The French call it "Baguenaudier."
The puzzle will be seen to consist of a simple loop of wire fixed in a handle to be held in the left hand, and a certain number of rings secured by wires which pass through holes in the bar and are kept there by their blunted ends. The wires work freely in the bar, but cannot come apart from it, nor can the wires be removed from the rings. The general puzzle is to detach the loop completely from all the rings, and then to put them all on again.
The puzzle consists of a simple loop of wire attached to a handle that you hold in your left hand, and a number of rings secured by wires that go through holes in the bar and are held in place by their blunt ends. The wires move easily within the bar, but they can't be separated from it, nor can the wires be taken off the rings. The main challenge is to completely remove the loop from all the rings and then put them all back on again.
Now, it will be seen at a glance that the first ring (to the right) can be taken off at any time by sliding it over the end and dropping it through the loop; or it may be put on by reversing the operation. With this exception, the only ring that can ever be removed is the one that happens to be a contiguous second on the loop at the right-hand end. Thus, with all the rings on, the second can be dropped at once; with the first ring down, you cannot drop the second, but may remove the third; with the first three rings down, you cannot drop the fourth, but may remove the fifth; and so on. It will be found that the first and second rings can be dropped together or put on together; but to prevent confusion we will throughout disallow this exceptional double move, and say that only one ring may be put on or removed at a time.
Now, it’s clear at a glance that the first ring (to the right) can be taken off at any time by sliding it over the end and dropping it through the loop; or it can be put on by reversing this process. Apart from that, the only ring that can ever be removed is the one that happens to be the second one right next to the loop at the right-hand end. So, when all the rings are on, the second can be dropped right away; with the first ring down, you cannot drop the second, but you can remove the third; with the first three rings down, you cannot drop the fourth, but you can remove the fifth; and so on. You will find that the first and second rings can be dropped together or put on together; but to avoid confusion, we will not allow this exceptional double move and will say that only one ring may be put on or removed at a time.
We can thus take off one ring in 1 move; two rings in 2 moves; three rings in 5 moves; four rings in 10 moves; five rings in 21 moves; and if we keep on doubling (and adding one where the number of rings is odd) we may easily ascertain the number of moves for completely removing any number of rings. To get off all the seven rings requires 85 moves. Let us look at the five moves made in removing the first three rings, the circles above the line standing for rings on the loop and those under for rings off the loop.
We can remove one ring in 1 move; two rings in 2 moves; three rings in 5 moves; four rings in 10 moves; five rings in 21 moves; and if we keep doubling (adding one when the number of rings is odd), we can easily figure out how many moves it takes to remove any number of rings. To remove all seven rings takes 85 moves. Let’s examine the five moves made to remove the first three rings, with the circles above the line representing rings on the loop and those below representing rings off the loop.
Drop the first ring; drop the third; put up the first; drop the second; and drop the first—5 moves, as shown clearly in the diagrams. The dark circles show at each stage, from the starting position to the finish, which rings it is possible to drop. After move 2 it will be noticed that no ring can be dropped until one has been put on, because the first and second rings from the right now on the loop are not together. After the fifth move, if we wish to remove all seven Pg 143rings we must now drop the fifth. But before we can then remove the fourth it is necessary to put on the first three and remove the first two. We shall then have 7, 6, 4, 3 on the loop, and may therefore drop the fourth. When we have put on 2 and 1 and removed 3, 2, 1, we may drop the seventh ring. The next operation then will be to get 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 4, 3, 2, 1, when 6 will come off; then get 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop, and remove 3, 2, 1, when 5 will come off; then get 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 2, 1, when 4 will come off; then get 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 1, when 3 will come off; then get 2, 1 on the loop, when 2 will come off; and 1 will fall through on the 85th move, leaving the loop quite free. The reader should now be able to understand the puzzle, whether or not he has it in his hand in a practical form.
Drop the first ring; drop the third; place the first ring; drop the second; and drop the first—5 moves, as clearly shown in the diagrams. The dark circles indicate which rings can be dropped at each stage, from the starting position to the finish. After the second move, you'll notice that no ring can be dropped until one is added, because the first and second rings from the right on the loop are not together. After the fifth move, to remove all seven Pg 143rings, we need to drop the fifth one. But before we can remove the fourth, we need to put on the first three and remove the first two. We will then have 7, 6, 4, 3 on the loop, allowing us to drop the fourth. Once we put on rings 2 and 1 and remove 3, 2, 1, we can drop the seventh ring. The next step is to add rings 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 4, 3, 2, 1, which will let go of 6; then put 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 3, 2, 1, letting go of 5; then put 4, 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 2, 1, letting go of 4; then put 3, 2, 1 on the loop and remove 1, letting go of 3; then put 2, 1 on the loop, which will let go of 2; and 1 will drop on the 85th move, leaving the loop completely clear. The reader should now be able to grasp the puzzle, regardless of whether they have it physically in hand.

The particular problem I propose is simply this. Suppose there are altogether fourteen rings on the tiring-irons, and we proceed to take them all off in the correct way so as not to waste any moves. What will be the position of the rings after the 9,999th move has been made?
The specific problem I present is this. Imagine there are a total of fourteen rings on the tiring-irons, and we start removing them all in the proper order to avoid wasting any moves. What will the arrangement of the rings be after the 9,999th move?
In a suburban villa there is a small staircase with eight steps, not counting the landing. The little puzzle with which Tommy Smart perplexed his family is this. You are required to start from the bottom and land twice on the floor above (stopping there at the finish), having returned once to the ground floor. But you must be careful to use every tread the same number of times. In how few steps can you make the ascent? It seems a very simple matter, but it is more than likely that at your first attempt you will make a great many more steps than are necessary. Of course you must not go more than one riser at a time.
In a suburban house, there’s a small staircase with eight steps, not including the landing. The little puzzle that Tommy Smart challenged his family with is this: You need to start from the bottom and land twice on the floor above (finishing there), having gone back to the ground floor once. But you have to make sure to use each step the same number of times. What’s the minimum number of steps you can take to get to the top? It might seem really simple, but it’s quite possible that on your first try, you’ll take a lot more steps than needed. And of course, you can't go up more than one step at a time.
Tommy knows the trick, and has shown it to his father, who professes to have a contempt for such things; but when the children are in bed the pater will often take friends out into the hall and enjoy a good laugh at their bewilderment. And yet it is all so very simple when you know how it is done.
Tommy knows the trick and has shown it to his dad, who claims to look down on such things; but when the kids are in bed, he often takes friends out into the hallway and has a good laugh at their confusion. Yet, it's really all very simple once you know how it's done.
Here is a really hard puzzle, and yet its conditions are so absurdly simple. Every reader knows how to place four pennies so that they are equidistant from each other. All you have to do is to arrange three of them flat on the table so that they touch one another in the form of a triangle, and lay the fourth penny on top in the centre. Then, as every penny touches every other penny, they are all at equal distances from one another. Now try to do the same thing with five pennies—place them so that every penny shall touch every other penny—and you will find it a different matter altogether.
Here is a really tough puzzle, yet its rules are incredibly simple. Every reader knows how to position four pennies so that they’re the same distance from each other. All you need to do is arrange three of them flat on the table so they touch each other in a triangular formation, then place the fourth penny on top in the center. That way, since every penny touches every other penny, they’re all equidistant from one another. Now, try doing the same with five pennies—arranging them so that each penny touches every other penny—and you’ll find it’s a completely different challenge.

Our friend Professor Rackbrane is seen in the illustration to be propounding another of his Pg 144little posers. He is explaining that since he last had occasion to take down those three volumes of a learned book from their place on his shelves a bookworm has actually bored a hole straight through from the first page to the last. He says that the leaves are together three inches thick in each volume, and that every cover is exactly one-eighth of an inch thick, and he asks how long a tunnel had the industrious worm to bore in preparing his new tube railway. Can you tell him?
Our friend Professor Rackbrane is shown in the illustration presenting another of his Pg 144little riddles. He is explaining that since he last took those three volumes of a scholarly book off his shelves, a bookworm has actually chewed a hole straight through from the first page to the last. He mentions that the pages are a total of three inches thick in each volume and that each cover is exactly one-eighth of an inch thick. He then asks how long of a tunnel the hardworking worm needed to chew to create his new tube railway. Can you tell him?

This is a puzzle based on a pretty little idea first dealt with by the late Mr. Sam Loyd. A man had nine pieces of chain, as shown in the illustration. He wanted to join these fifty links into one endless chain. It will cost a penny to open any link and twopence to weld a link together again, but he could buy a new endless chain of the same character and quality for 2s. 2d. What was the cheapest course for him to adopt? Unless the reader is cunning he may find himself a good way out in his answer.
This is a puzzle based on a clever little idea first introduced by the late Mr. Sam Loyd. A man had nine pieces of chain, as shown in the illustration. He wanted to connect these fifty links into one continuous chain. It would cost a penny to open any link and two pence to weld a link back together, but he could buy a new endless chain of the same type and quality for 2s. 2d. What was the cheapest option for him to take? Unless the reader is sharp, he might find himself stuck with his answer.
I have come across the following little poser in an old book. I wonder how many readers will see the author's intended solution to the riddle.
I found this little puzzle in an old book. I wonder how many readers will recognize the author's intended solution to the riddle.
Christians the week's first day for Sabbath hold;
The Jews the seventh, as they did of old;
The Turks the sixth, as we have oft been told.
How can these three, in the same place and day,
Have each his own true Sabbath? tell, I pray.
Christians observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath;
The Jews observe the seventh, just as they always have;
The Turks celebrate the sixth, as we've often heard.
How can these three be in the same place on the same day,
Does everyone have their own true Sabbath? Please let me know.
The annals of Scotland Yard contain some remarkable cases of jewel robberies, but one of the most perplexing was the theft of Lady Littlewood's rubies. There have, of course, been many greater robberies in point of value, but few so artfully conceived. Lady Littlewood, of Romley Manor, had a beautiful but rather eccentric heirloom in the form of a ruby brooch. While staying at her town house early in the eighties she took the jewel to a shop in Brompton for some slight repairs.
The records of Scotland Yard include some standout cases of jewel thefts, but one of the most puzzling was the robbery of Lady Littlewood's rubies. There have certainly been bigger robberies in terms of value, but few were as cleverly planned. Lady Littlewood, who lived at Romley Manor, owned a stunning but somewhat quirky heirloom—a ruby brooch. During her stay at her city house in the early eighties, she brought the jewel to a shop in Brompton for a few minor repairs.
"A fine collection of rubies, madam," said the shopkeeper, to whom her ladyship was a stranger.
"A great collection of rubies, ma'am," said the shopkeeper, who didn't know her.
"Yes," she replied; "but curiously enough I have never actually counted them. My mother once pointed out to me that if you start from the centre and count up one line, along the outside and down the next line, there are always eight rubies. So I should always know if a stone were missing."
"Yes," she replied, "but interestingly, I've never actually counted them. My mom once mentioned that if you start from the center and count up one line, then go along the outside and down the next line, there are always eight rubies. So I would always know if a stone was missing."

Six months later a brother of Lady LittlePg 145wood's, who had returned from his regiment in India, noticed that his sister was wearing the ruby brooch one night at a county ball, and on their return home asked to look at it more closely. He immediately detected the fact that four of the stones were gone.
Six months later, a brother of Lady Littlewood, who had just come back from his regiment in India, noticed that his sister was wearing the ruby brooch one night at a county ball. On their way home, he asked to take a closer look at it. He quickly realized that four of the stones were missing.
"How can that possibly be?" said Lady Littlewood. "If you count up one line from the centre, along the edge, and down the next line, in any direction, there are always eight stones. This was always so and is so now. How, therefore, would it be possible to remove a stone without my detecting it?"
"How can that possibly be?" Lady Littlewood said. "If you count one line from the center, along the edge, and down the next line in any direction, there are always eight stones. This has always been true and still is. So how could it be possible to remove a stone without me noticing?"
"Nothing could be simpler," replied the brother. "I know the brooch well. It originally contained forty-five stones, and there are now only forty-one. Somebody has stolen four rubies, and then reset as small a number of the others as possible in such a way that there shall always be eight in any of the directions you have mentioned."
"Nothing could be easier," replied the brother. "I know the brooch well. It originally had forty-five stones, and now there are only forty-one. Someone has stolen four rubies and reset as few of the others as possible so that there are always eight in any of the directions you mentioned."
There was not the slightest doubt that the Brompton jeweller was the thief, and the matter was placed in the hands of the police. But the man was wanted for other robberies, and had left the neighbourhood some time before. To this day he has never been found.
There was no doubt at all that the Brompton jeweler was the thief, and the police were called in. But the man was wanted for other robberies and had left the area some time ago. To this day, he has never been found.
The interesting little point that at first baffled the police, and which forms the subject of our puzzle, is this: How were the forty-five rubies originally arranged on the brooch? The illustration shows exactly how the forty-one were arranged after it came back from the jeweller; but although they count eight correctly in any of the directions mentioned, there are four stones missing.
The intriguing detail that initially puzzled the police, and serves as the focus of our mystery, is this: How were the forty-five rubies originally arranged on the brooch? The illustration clearly shows how the forty-one were arranged after it returned from the jeweler; however, while they correctly account for eight in any of the mentioned directions, there are four stones missing.

Here is a curious mechanical puzzle that was given to me some years ago, but I cannot say who first invented it. It consists of two solid blocks of wood securely dovetailed together. On the other two vertical sides that are not visible the appearance is precisely the same as on those shown. How were the pieces put together? When I published this little puzzle in a London newspaper I received (though they were unsolicited) quite a stack of models, in oak, in teak, in mahogany, rosewood, satinwood, elm, and deal; some half a foot in length, and others varying in size right down to a delicate little model about half an inch square. It seemed to create considerable interest.
Here’s an interesting mechanical puzzle that was given to me a few years ago, but I can't say who originally invented it. It consists of two solid blocks of wood that are securely joined together. The appearance on the other two vertical sides, which aren’t visible, is exactly the same as on the shown sides. How were the pieces assembled? When I published this little puzzle in a London newspaper, I received (though they were unsolicited) quite a collection of models, made from oak, teak, mahogany, rosewood, satinwood, elm, and softwood; some were about half a foot long, while others varied in size all the way down to a delicate little model about half an inch square. It seemed to spark quite a bit of interest.

The illustration, by a British artist, is a sketch of Jack climbing the beanstalk. Now, the artist has made a serious blunder in this drawing. Can you find out what it is?
The illustration, by a British artist, is a sketch of Jack climbing the beanstalk. Now, the artist has made a serious mistake in this drawing. Can you figure out what it is?
The worthy vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred is in great distress. A little church difficulty has arisen that all the combined intelligence of the parish seems unable to surmount. What this difficulty is I will state hereafter, but it may add to the interest of the problem if I first give a short account of the curious position that has been brought about. It all has to do with the church hymn-boards, the plates of which have become so damaged that they have ceased to fulfil the purpose for which they were devised. A generous parishioner has promised to pay for a new set of plates at a certain rate of cost; but strange as it may seem, no agreement can be come to as to what that cost should be. The proposed maker of the plates has named Pg 146a price which the donor declares to be absurd. The good vicar thinks they are both wrong, so he asks the schoolmaster to work out the little sum. But this individual declares that he can find no rule bearing on the subject in any of his arithmetic books. An application having been made to the local medical practitioner, as a man of more than average intellect at Chumpley, he has assured the vicar that his practice is so heavy that he has not had time even to look at it, though his assistant whispers that the doctor has been sitting up unusually late for several nights past. Widow Wilson has a smart son, who is reputed to have once won a prize for puzzle-solving. He asserts that as he cannot find any solution to the problem it must have something to do with the squaring of the circle, the duplication of the cube, or the trisection of an angle; at any rate, he has never before seen a puzzle on the principle, and he gives it up.
The worthy vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred is really upset. A minor issue at the church has come up that everyone in the parish seems unable to solve. I'll explain what the issue is later, but to make the situation more interesting, I'll first share a brief overview of the odd situation that has developed. It all revolves around the church hymn boards, the plates of which have become so damaged that they no longer serve their intended purpose. A generous parishioner has offered to pay for a new set of plates at a specific price, but oddly enough, they can't agree on what that price should be. The proposed manufacturer of the plates has quoted a price that the donor claims is ridiculous. The kind vicar believes they're both mistaken, so he asks the schoolmaster to figure out the small calculation. However, this person insists he can’t find any relevant rules in his math books. After reaching out to the local doctor, known for having above-average intelligence in Chumpley, he says his workload is too heavy to address it, even though his assistant hints that the doctor has been staying up unusually late for the past few nights. Widow Wilson has a clever son, rumored to have once won a prize for solving puzzles. He claims that since he can’t find a solution to the problem, it must involve something like squaring the circle, duplicating the cube, or trisecting an angle. In any case, he’s never seen a puzzle quite like this one before and decides to give up.

This was the state of affairs when the assistant curate (who, I should say, had frankly confessed from the first that a profound study of theology had knocked out of his head all the knowledge of mathematics he ever possessed) kindly sent me the puzzle.
This was the situation when the assistant curate (who, I should mention, had openly admitted from the beginning that a deep study of theology had erased all the math knowledge he ever had) generously sent me the puzzle.
A church has three hymn-boards, each to indicate the numbers of five different hymns to be sung at a service. All the boards are in use at the same service. The hymn-book contains 700 hymns. A new set of numbers is required, and a kind parishioner offers to present a set painted on metal plates, but stipulates that only the smallest number of plates necessary shall be purchased. The cost of each plate is to be 6d., and for the painting of each plate the charges are to be: For one plate, 1s.; for two plates alike, 11¾d. each; for three plates alike, 11½d. each, and so on, the charge being one farthing less per plate for each similarly painted plate. Now, what should be the lowest cost?
A church has three hymn boards, each showing the numbers of five different hymns to be sung at a service. All the boards are used during the same service. The hymn book contains 700 hymns. A kind parishioner offers to provide a new set of numbers painted on metal plates, but insists that only the smallest number of plates necessary should be bought. Each plate costs 6d., and the charges for painting each plate are as follows: For one plate, 1s.; for two identical plates, 11¾d. each; for three identical plates, 11½d. each, and so on, with the cost decreasing by one farthing per plate for each additional identical plate. Now, what should be the lowest cost?
Readers will note that they are required to use every legitimate and practical method of economy. The illustration will make clear the nature of the three hymn-boards and plates. The five hymns are here indicated by means of twelve plates. These plates slide in separately at the back, and in the illustration there is room, of course, for three more plates.
Readers will see that they need to use every sensible and effective way to save money. The illustration will clarify the design of the three hymn boards and plates. The five hymns are shown using twelve plates. These plates slide in individually from the back, and the illustration allows space for three additional plates.
A Cockney friend, who is very apt to draw the long bow, and is evidently less of a sportsman than he pretends to be, relates to me the following not very credible yarn:—
A Cockney friend, who tends to exaggerate and is clearly not as much of a sports fan as he claims, tells me this rather unbelievable story:—
"I've just been pheasant-shooting with my friend the duke. We had splendid sport, and I made some wonderful shots. What do you think of this, for instance? Perhaps you can twist it into a puzzle. The duke and I were crossing a field when suddenly twenty-four pheasants rose on the wing right in front of us. I fired, and two-thirds of them dropped dead at my feet. Then the duke had a shot at what were left, and brought down three-twenty-fourths of them, wounded in the wing. Now, out of those twenty-four birds, how many still remained?"
"I just went pheasant shooting with my friend the duke. We had a great time, and I made some amazing shots. What do you think of this, for example? Maybe you can turn it into a puzzle. The duke and I were walking across a field when suddenly twenty-four pheasants took off right in front of us. I shot, and two-thirds of them fell dead at my feet. Then the duke took a shot at what was left and brought down three out of twenty-four, injuring them in the wing. So, out of those twenty-four birds, how many were still flying?"
It seems a simple enough question, but can the reader give a correct answer?
It seems like a straightforward question, but can the reader provide the right answer?
A correspondent, signing himself "Simple Simon," suggested that I should give a special catch puzzle in the issue of The Weekly Dispatch for All Fools' Day, 1900. So I gave the following, and it caused considerable amusement; for out of a very large body of competitors, many quite expert, not a single person solved it, though it ran for nearly a month.
A writer who called himself "Simple Simon" suggested that I include a special catch puzzle in the issue of The Weekly Dispatch for April Fools' Day, 1900. So I published the following puzzle, and it generated quite a bit of laughter; because out of a large number of competitors, many of whom were very skilled, not a single person solved it, even though it ran for nearly a month.

"The illustration is a fancy sketch of my correspondent, 'Simple Simon,' in the act of trying to solve the following innocent little Pg 147arithmetical puzzle. A race between a man and a woman that I happened to witness one All Fools' Day has fixed itself indelibly on my memory. It happened at a country-house, where the gardener and the cook decided to run a race to a point 100 feet straight away and return. I found that the gardener ran 3 feet at every bound and the cook only 2 feet, but then she made three bounds to his two. Now, what was the result of the race?"
"The illustration is a detailed sketch of my correspondent, 'Simple Simon,' attempting to solve a simple little Pg 147arithmetic puzzle. A race between a man and a woman that I witnessed one April Fools' Day has stuck in my mind. It took place at a country house, where the gardener and the cook decided to race to a point 100 feet straight ahead and back. I found that the gardener covered 3 feet with each jump while the cook covered only 2 feet, but she made three jumps for every two of his. So, what was the outcome of the race?"
A fortnight after publication I added the following note: "It has been suggested that perhaps there is a catch in the 'return,' but there is not. The race is to a point 100 feet away and home again—that is, a distance of 200 feet. One correspondent asks whether they take exactly the same time in turning, to which I reply that they do. Another seems to suspect that it is really a conundrum, and that the answer is that 'the result of the race was a (matrimonial) tie.' But I had no such intention. The puzzle is an arithmetical one, as it purports to be."
A couple of weeks after publication, I added this note: "Some people have suggested there might be a trick in the 'return,' but there isn't. The race is to a point 100 feet away and back home—that is, a total distance of 200 feet. One reader asked if they take exactly the same time to turn, and I confirm that they do. Another seems to think it's actually a riddle, and that the answer is that 'the result of the race was a (matrimonial) tie.' But that wasn't my intention at all. The puzzle is purely about arithmetic, just as it appears to be."

Here is an interesting little puzzle suggested to me by Mr. W. T. Whyte. Mark off on a sheet of paper a rectangular space 5 inches by 3 inches, and then find the greatest number of halfpennies that can be placed within the enclosure under the following conditions. A halfpenny is exactly an inch in diameter. Place your first halfpenny where you like, then place your second coin at exactly the distance of an inch from the first, the third an inch distance from the second, and so on. No halfpenny may touch another halfpenny or cross the boundary. Our illustration will make the matter perfectly clear. No. 2 coin is an inch from No. 1; No. 3 an inch from No. 2; No. 4 an inch from No. 3; but after No. 10 is placed we can go no further in this attempt. Yet several more halfpennies might have been got in. How many can the reader place?
Here’s a fun little puzzle that Mr. W. T. Whyte suggested to me. Draw a rectangle on a piece of paper that measures 5 inches by 3 inches, and then see how many halfpennies you can fit inside while following these rules. A halfpenny is exactly an inch in diameter. Place your first halfpenny wherever you want, then put your second coin exactly an inch away from the first, the third one an inch away from the second, and so on. No halfpenny can touch another halfpenny or go beyond the boundaries. Our illustration will clarify everything. Coin No. 2 is an inch from No. 1; No. 3 is an inch from No. 2; No. 4 is an inch from No. 3; but after we place No. 10, we can’t fit in any more this way. However, there could be space for a few more halfpennies. How many can you manage to place?

One summer day in 1903 I was loitering on the Brighton front, watching the people strolling about on the beach, when the friend who was with me suddenly drew my attention to an individual who was standing alone, and said, "Can you point out that man's wife? They are stopping at the same hotel as I am, and the lady is one of those in view." After a few minutes' observation, I was successful in indicating the lady correctly. My friend was curious to know by what method of reasoning I had arrived at the result. This was my answer:—
One summer day in 1903, I was hanging out on the Brighton seafront, watching people walk around on the beach, when my friend suddenly pointed out a guy standing alone and said, "Can you identify that man's wife? They're staying at the same hotel as I am, and the woman is one of those in sight." After a few minutes of watching, I managed to correctly point her out. My friend wanted to know how I figured it out. This was my response:—
"We may at once exclude that Sister of Mercy and the girl in the short frock; also the woman selling oranges. It cannot be the lady in widows' weeds. It is not the lady in the bath chair, because she is not staying at your hotel, for I happened to see her come out of a private house this morning assisted by her maid. The two ladies in red breakfasted at my hotel this morning, and as they were not wearing outdoor dress I conclude they are staying there. It therefore rests between the lady in blue and the one with the green parasol. But the left hand that holds the parasol is, you see, ungloved and bears no wedding-ring. Consequently I am driven to the conclusion that the lady in blue is the man's wife—and you say this is correct."
"We can rule out the Sister of Mercy and the girl in the short dress, as well as the woman selling oranges. It can't be the lady in mourning attire. It's not the lady in the wheelchair because she isn't staying at your hotel; I actually saw her leave a private house this morning with her maid. The two ladies in red had breakfast at my hotel this morning, and since they weren't dressed for outside, I assume they're staying there. So, we have to consider the lady in blue and the one with the green parasol. But the left hand holding the parasol is ungloved and has no wedding ring. Therefore, I conclude that the lady in blue is the man's wife—and you say that's correct."
Now, as my friend was an artist, and as I thought an amusing puzzle might be devised on the lines of his question, I asked him to make me a drawing according to some directions that I gave him, and I have pleasure in presenting his production to my readers. It will be seen that the picture shows six men and six ladies: Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are ladies, and Nos. 2, Pg 1484, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are men. These twelve individuals represent six married couples, all strangers to one another, who, in walking aimlessly about, have got mixed up. But we are only concerned with the man that is wearing a straw hat—Number 10. The puzzle is to find this man's wife. Examine the six ladies carefully, and see if you can determine which one of them it is.
Now, since my friend was an artist and I thought it would be fun to create a puzzle based on his question, I asked him to draw something based on some directions I gave him, and I'm pleased to share his artwork with my readers. You'll notice that the picture shows six men and six women: Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are women, and Nos. 2, Pg 1484, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are men. These twelve people represent six married couples, none of whom know each other, who have mixed up while wandering around. But we are only focused on the man wearing a straw hat—Number 10. The challenge is to find this man's wife. Take a good look at the six women and see if you can figure out which one she is.
I showed the picture at the time to a few friends, and they expressed very different opinions on the matter. One said, "I don't believe he would marry a girl like Number 7." Another said, "I am sure a nice girl like Number 3 would not marry such a fellow!" Another said, "It must be Number 1, because she has got as far away as possible from the brute!" It was suggested, again, that it must be Number 11, because "he seems to be looking towards her;" but a cynic retorted, "For that very reason, if he is really looking at her, I should say that she is not his wife!"
I showed the picture to a few friends at the time, and they had very different opinions about it. One said, "I can’t believe he’d marry someone like Number 7." Another replied, "I’m sure a nice girl like Number 3 wouldn’t marry a guy like that!" Someone else said, "It must be Number 1, because she’s gotten as far away from the jerk as possible!" It was suggested again that it might be Number 11, because "he seems to be looking at her;" but a cynic shot back, "If he’s really looking at her, then I’d say she’s definitely not his wife!"
I now leave the question in the hands of my readers. Which is really Number 10's wife?
I now leave the question to my readers. Who is actually Number 10's wife?
The illustration is of necessity considerably reduced from the large
scale on which it originally appeared in The Weekly Dispatch (24th
May 1903), but it is hoped that the details will be sufficiently clear
to allow the reader to derive entertainment from its examination. In
any case the solution given will enable him to follow the points with
interest.
The illustration has been significantly scaled down from the large format it originally had in The Weekly Dispatch (May 24, 1903), but we hope that the details will be clear enough for the reader to find it enjoyable to look at. Regardless, the provided solution will help the reader follow along with interest.
SOLUTIONS.
The young lady supplied 5 twopenny stamps, 30 penny stamps, and 8 twopence-halfpenny stamps, which delivery exactly fulfils the conditions and represents a cost of five shillings.
The young lady provided 5 two-penny stamps, 30 one-penny stamps, and 8 two-and-a-half penny stamps, which delivery perfectly meets the requirements and amounts to a cost of five shillings.
The price of the banana must have been one penny farthing. Thus, 960 bananas would cost £5, and 480 sixpences would buy 2,304 bananas.
The price of the banana must have been one penny farthing. So, 960 bananas would cost £5, and 480 sixpences would buy 2,304 bananas.
Jakes must have taken 7 animals to market, Hodge must have taken 11, and Durrant must have taken 21. There were thus 39 animals altogether.
Jakes must have taken 7 animals to the market, Hodge must have taken 11, and Durrant must have taken 21. So, there were 39 animals in total.
The cobblers spent 35s., the tailors spent also 35s., the hatters spent 42s., and the glovers spent 21s. Thus, they spent altogether £6,13s., while it will be found that the five cobblers spent as much as four tailors, twelve tailors as much as nine hatters, and six hatters as much as eight glovers.
The cobblers spent £35, the tailors spent £35 too, the hatters spent £42, and the glovers spent £21. In total, they spent £6.13. It turns out that five cobblers spent as much as four tailors, twelve tailors spent the same as nine hatters, and six hatters spent as much as eight glovers.
Puzzles of this class are generally solved in the old books by the tedious process of "working backwards." But a simple general solution is as follows: If there are n players, the amount held by every player at the end will be m(2n), the last winner must have held m(n+1) at the start, the next m(2n+1), the next m(4n+1), the next m(8n+1), and so on to the first player, who must have held m(2n-1n+1).
Puzzles like this are usually solved in traditional books using the slow method of "working backwards." However, a straightforward general solution is as follows: If there are n players, the amount that each player has at the end will be m(2n). The last winner must have started with m(n+1), the next player had m(2n+1), the next one m(4n+1), the next m(8n+1), and so on, up to the first player, who must have started with m(2n-1n+1).
Thus, in this case, n = 7, and the amount held by every player at the end was 27 farthings. Therefore m = 1, and G started with 8 farthings, F with 15, E with 29, D with 57, C with 113, B with 225, and A with 449 farthings.
Thus, in this case, n = 7, and the amount held by every player at the end was 27 farthings. Therefore m = 1, and G started with 8 farthings, F with 15, E with 29, D with 57, C with 113, B with 225, and A with 449 farthings.
There are seven different ways in which the money may be distributed: 5 women and 19 men, 10 women and 16 men, 15 women and 13 men, 20 women and 10 men, 25 women and 7 men, 30 women and 4 men, and 35 women and 1 man. But the last case must not be counted, because the condition was that there should be "men," and a single man is not men. Therefore the answer is six years.
There are seven different ways the money can be distributed: 5 women and 19 men, 10 women and 16 men, 15 women and 13 men, 20 women and 10 men, 25 women and 7 men, 30 women and 4 men, and 35 women and 1 man. However, the last case shouldn't be counted because the requirement was for "men," and one man doesn't count as men. Therefore, the answer is six years.
The widow's share of the legacy must be £205, 2s. 6d. and 10/13 of a penny.
The widow's share of the inheritance must be £205, 2s. 6d. and 10/13 of a penny.
The gentleman must have had 3s. 6d. in his pocket when he set out for home.
The man must have had 3s. 6d. in his pocket when he left for home.
The man must have paid £500 and £750 for the two machines, making together £1,250; but as he sold them for only £1,200, he lost £50 by the transaction.
The man must have paid between £500 and £750 for the two machines, totaling £1,250; however, since he sold them for only £1,200, he lost £50 in the deal.
Jorkins had originally £19, 18s. in his pocket, and spent £9, 19s.
Jorkins originally had £19, 18s. in his pocket and spent £9, 19s.
There were ten cyclists at the feast. They should have paid 8s. each; but, owing to the departure of two persons, the remaining eight would pay 10s. each.
There were ten cyclists at the feast. They should have paid 8s. each; but, due to the departure of two people, the remaining eight would pay 10s. each.
The answer is as follows: £44,444, 4s. 4d. = 28, and, reduced to pence, 10,666,612 = 28.
The answer is as follows: £44,444, 4s, 4d = 28, and, reduced to pence, 10,666,612 = 28.
It is a curious little coincidence that in the answer 10,666,612 the four central figures indicate the only other answer, £66, 6s. 6d.
It’s a strange little coincidence that in the answer 10,666,612, the four middle digits point to the only other answer, £66, 6s. 6d.
The smallest sum of money, in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, containing all the nine digits once, and once only, is £2,567, 18s. 9¾d.
The smallest amount of money, in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, that contains all nine digits once and only once is £2,567, 18s. 9¾d.
Pg 149__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
The answer is 1½d. and 3d. Added together they make 4½d., and 1½d. multiplied by 3 is also 4½d.
The answer is 1.5d and 3d. Combined, they total 4.5d, and 1.5d multiplied by 3 also equals 4.5d.
The largest possible sum is 15s. 9d., composed of a crown and a half-crown (or three half-crowns), four florins, and a threepenny piece.
The highest possible total is 15s. 9d., made up of one crown and one half-crown (or three half-crowns), four florins, and a threepenny piece.
The answer to this quite easy puzzle may, of course, be readily obtained by trial, deducting the largest power of 7 that is contained in one million dollars, then the next largest power from the remainder, and so on. But the little problem is intended to illustrate a simple direct method. The answer is given at once by converting 1,000,000 to the septenary scale, and it is on this subject of scales of notation that I propose to write a few words for the benefit of those who have never sufficiently considered the matter.
The answer to this fairly simple puzzle can easily be found by trying different values, starting with the largest power of 7 that fits into one million dollars, then subtracting that from the total, and repeating the process. However, this exercise is meant to show a straightforward method. You can quickly find the answer by converting 1,000,000 into base 7, and it’s on the topic of number systems that I want to share a few thoughts for those who haven't given it much thought.
Our manner of figuring is a sort of perfected arithmetical shorthand, a system devised to enable us to manipulate numbers as rapidly and correctly as possible by means of symbols. If we write the number 2,341 to represent two thousand three hundred and forty-one dollars, we wish to imply 1 dollar, added to four times 10 dollars, added to three times 100 dollars, added to two times 1,000 dollars. From the number in the units place on the right, every figure to the left is understood to represent a multiple of the particular power of 10 that its position indicates, while a cipher (0) must be inserted where necessary in order to prevent confusion, for if instead of 207 we wrote 27 it would be obviously misleading. We thus only require ten figures, because directly a number exceeds 9 we put a second figure to the left, directly it exceeds 99 we put a third figure to the left, and so on. It will be seen that this is a purely arbitrary method. It is working in the denary (or ten) scale of notation, a system undoubtedly derived from the fact that our forefathers who devised it had ten fingers upon which they were accustomed to count, like our children of to-day. It is unnecessary for us ordinarily to state that we are using the denary scale, because this is always understood in the common affairs of life.
Our way of calculating is a kind of advanced numerical shorthand, designed to help us handle numbers quickly and accurately using symbols. When we write the number 2,341 to represent two thousand three hundred and forty-one dollars, we mean 1 dollar, plus four times 10 dollars, plus three times 100 dollars, plus two times 1,000 dollars. From the digit in the units place on the right, every number to the left represents a multiple of the specific power of 10 indicated by its position, while a zero must be added where needed to avoid confusion; if we wrote 27 instead of 207, it would clearly lead to misunderstandings. We only need ten digits because as soon as a number goes beyond 9, we add a second digit to the left, when it exceeds 99, we add a third digit to the left, and so on. This is a completely arbitrary system. It works on the base ten scale of notation, which likely comes from the fact that our ancestors, who created it, had ten fingers they used for counting, just like today's children. Usually, we don’t need to specify that we are using the base ten system, as it’s always understood in everyday life.
But if a man said that he had 6,553 dollars in the septenary (or seven) scale of notation, you will find that this is precisely the same amount as 2,341 in our ordinary denary scale. Instead of using powers of ten, he uses powers of 7, so that he never needs any figure higher than 6, and 6,553 really stands for 3, added to five times 7, added to five times 49, added to six times 343 (in the ordinary notation), or 2,341. To reverse the operation, and convert 2,341 from the denary to the septenary scale, we divide it by 7, and get 334 and remainder 3; divide 334 by 7, and get 47 and remainder 5; and so keep on dividing by 7 as long as there is anything to divide. The remainders, read backwards, 6, 5, 5, 3, give us the answer, 6,553.
But if someone claimed they had 6,553 dollars in the base seven numbering system, you'd find that this is exactly the same as 2,341 in our standard base ten system. Instead of using powers of ten, they use powers of 7, which means they never need any digit higher than 6. So, 6,553 really represents 3, plus five times 7, plus five times 49, plus six times 343 (in regular notation), or 2,341. To reverse the process and convert 2,341 from base ten to base seven, we divide it by 7, giving us 334 with a remainder of 3; then we divide 334 by 7, giving us 47 with a remainder of 5, and we keep dividing by 7 as long as there's something left to divide. Reading the remainders backwards, 6, 5, 5, 3, gives us the answer, 6,553.
Now, as I have said, our puzzle may be solved at once by merely converting 1,000,000 dollars to the septenary scale. Keep on dividing this number by 7 until there is nothing more left to divide, and the remainders will be found to be 11333311 which is 1,000,000 expressed in the septenary scale. Therefore, 1 gift of 1 dollar, 1 gift of 7 dollars, 3 gifts of 49 dollars, 3 gifts of 343 dollars, 3 gifts of 2,401 dollars, 3 gifts of 16,807 dollars, 1 gift of 117,649 dollars, and one substantial gift of 823,543 dollars, satisfactorily solves our problem. And it is the only possible solution. It is thus seen that no "trials" are necessary; by converting to the septenary scale of notation we go direct to the answer.
Now, as I mentioned, we can solve our puzzle right away by simply converting 1,000,000 dollars into the base-7 system. Keep dividing this number by 7 until there’s nothing left to divide, and the remainders will be 11333311, which represents 1,000,000 in base-7. So, we have 1 gift of 1 dollar, 1 gift of 7 dollars, 3 gifts of 49 dollars, 3 gifts of 343 dollars, 3 gifts of 2,401 dollars, 3 gifts of 16,807 dollars, 1 gift of 117,649 dollars, and one big gift of 823,543 dollars, which completely solves our problem. And this is the only solution possible. As you can see, there’s no need for any "trials"; by converting to base-7 notation, we go straight to the answer.
The correct answer to this puzzle is as follows: John put into his money-box two double florins (8s.), William a half-sovereign and a florin (12s.), Charles a crown (5s.), and Thomas a sovereign (20s.). There are six coins in all, of a total value of 45s. If John had 2s. more, William 2s. less, Charles twice as much, and Thomas half as much as they really possessed, they would each have had exactly 10s.
The correct answer to this puzzle is as follows: John put two double florins into his piggy bank (8s), William put in a half-sovereign and a florin (12s), Charles contributed a crown (5s), and Thomas added a sovereign (20s). There are six coins in total, with a combined value of 45s. If John had 2s more, William had 2s less, Charles had twice as much, and Thomas had half as much as they actually owned, each of them would have had exactly 10s.
The price received was in every case 105 farthings. Therefore the greatest number of women is eight, as the goods could only be sold at the following rates: 105 lbs. at 1 farthing, 35 at 3, 21 at 5, 15 at 7, 7 at 15, 5 at 21, 3 at 35, and 1 lb. at 105 farthings.
The price received was always 105 farthings. So, the highest number of women is eight, since the goods could only be sold at these rates: 105 lbs. at 1 farthing, 35 at 3, 21 at 5, 15 at 7, 7 at 15, 5 at 21, 3 at 35, and 1 lb. at 105 farthings.
The company present on the occasion must have consisted of seven pairs, ten single men, and one single lady. Thus, there were twenty-five persons in all, and at the prices stated they would pay exactly £5 together.
The company at the event likely included seven couples, ten single men, and one single woman. So, there were twenty-five people in total, and at the stated prices, they would pay exactly £5 altogether.
The lady bought 48 lbs. of beef at 2s., and the same quantity of sausages at 1s. 6d., thus spending £8, 8s. Had she bought 42 lbs. of beef and 56 lbs. of sausages she would have spent £4, 4s. on each, and have obtained 98 lbs. instead of 96 lbs.—a gain in weight of 2 lbs.
The woman bought 48 lbs of beef at 2s, and the same amount of sausages at 1s 6d, spending £8, 8s. If she had bought 42 lbs of beef and 56 lbs of sausages, she would have spent £4, 4s on each and would have gotten 98 lbs instead of 96 lbs—a weight gain of 2 lbs.
I was first offered sixteen apples for my shilling, which would be at the rate of ninepence a dozen. The two extra apples gave me eighteen for a shilling, which is at the rate of eightpence a dozen, or one penny a dozen less than the first price asked.
I was initially offered sixteen apples for my shilling, which comes out to ninepence a dozen. The two extra apples brought the total to eighteen for a shilling, which is at the rate of eightpence a dozen, or one penny less per dozen than the first price quoted.
The distribution took place "some years ago," when the fourpenny-piece was in circulation. Nineteen persons must each have received nineteen pence. There are five different ways in which this sum may have been paid in silver coins. We need only use two of these ways. Thus if fourteen men each received four four-penny-pieces and one threepenny-piece, and five men each received five threepenny-pieces and one fourpenny-piece, each man would receive nineteen pence, and there would be exactly one hundred coins of a total value of £1, 10s. 1d.
The distribution happened "a few years ago," when the fourpenny coin was still in circulation. Nineteen people must have each received nineteen pence. There are five different ways this amount could have been paid in silver coins. We only need to consider two of these methods. For example, if fourteen men each got four fourpenny coins and one threepenny coin, and five men each received five threepenny coins and one fourpenny coin, then each person would get nineteen pence, and there would be exactly one hundred coins totaling £1, 10s. 1d.
The first purchase amounted to 1s. 5¾d., the second to 1s. 11½d., and together they make 3s. 5¼d. Not one of these three amounts can be paid in fewer than six current coins of the realm.
The first purchase cost 1s. 5¾d., the second cost 1s. 11½d., and together they total 3s. 5¼d. None of these three amounts can be paid with fewer than six coins currently in circulation.
As a ching-chang is worth twopence and four-fifteenths of a ching-chang, the remaining eleven-fifteenths of a ching-chang must be worth twopence. Therefore eleven ching-changs are worth exactly thirty pence, or half a crown. Now, the exchange must be made with seven round-holed coins and one square-holed coin. Thus it will be seen that 7 round-holed coins are worth seven-elevenths of 15 ching-changs, and 1 square-holed coin is worth one-eleventh of 16 ching-changs—that is, 77 rounds equal 105 ching-changs and 11 squares equal 16 ching-changs. Therefore 77 rounds added to 11 squares equal 121 ching-changs; or 7 rounds and 1 square equal 11 ching-changs, or its equivalent, half a crown. This is more simple in practice than it looks here.
As a ching-chang is worth two pence and four-fifteenths of a ching-chang, the remaining eleven-fifteenths of a ching-chang must be worth two pence. Therefore, eleven ching-changs are worth exactly thirty pence, or half a crown. Now, the exchange must be done with seven round-holed coins and one square-holed coin. So, you can see that 7 round-holed coins are worth seven-elevenths of 15 ching-changs, and 1 square-holed coin is worth one-eleventh of 16 ching-changs—that is, 77 rounds equal 105 ching-changs and 11 squares equal 16 ching-changs. Therefore, 77 rounds plus 11 squares equal 121 ching-changs; or 7 rounds and 1 square equal 11 ching-changs, which is the same as half a crown. This is actually simpler in practice than it appears here.
Although Snoggs's reason for wishing to take his rise at £2, 10s. half-yearly did not concern our puzzle, the fact that he was duping his employer into paying him more than was intended did concern it. Many readers will be surprised to find that, although Moggs only received £350 in five years, the artful Snoggs actually obtained £362, 10s. in the same time. The rest is simplicity itself. It is evident that if Moggs saved £87, 10s. and Snoggs £181, 5s., the latter would be saving twice as great a proportion of his salary as the former (namely, one-half as against one-quarter), and the two sums added together make £268, 15s.
Although Snoggs's reason for wanting to increase his salary to £2, 10s. every six months wasn't the focus of our puzzle, the fact that he was tricking his employer into paying him more than intended was relevant. Many readers will be surprised to learn that, even though Moggs only made £350 over five years, the clever Snoggs actually received £362, 10s. during the same period. The rest is straightforward. It's clear that if Moggs saved £87, 10s. and Snoggs saved £181, 5s., the latter was saving twice the proportion of his salary compared to the former (one-half versus one-quarter), and the two amounts combined total £268, 15s.
The way to help the American tradesman out of his dilemma is this. Describing the coins by the number of cents that they represent, the tradesman puts on the counter 50 and 25; the buyer puts down 100, 3, and 2; the stranger adds his 10, 10, 5, 2, and 1. Now, considering that the cost of the purchase amounted to 34 cents, it is clear that out of this pooled money the tradesman has to receive 109, the buyer 71, and the stranger his 28 cents. Therefore it is obvious at a glance that the 100-piece must go to the tradesman, and it then follows that the 50-piece must go to the buyer, and then the 25-piece can only go to the stranger. Another glance will now make it clear that the two 10-cent pieces must go to the buyer, because the tradesman now only wants 9 and the stranger 3. Then it becomes obvious that the buyer must take the 1 cent, that the stranger must take the 3 cents, and the tradesman the 5, 2, and 2. To sum up, the tradesman takes 100, 5, 2, and 2; the buyer, 50, 10, 10, and 1; the stranger, 25 and 3. It will be seen that not one of the three persons retains any one of his own coins.
The way to help the American tradesman out of his dilemma is this. Describing the coins by the number of cents they represent, the tradesman puts 50 and 25 on the counter; the buyer puts down 100, 3, and 2; the stranger adds his 10, 10, 5, 2, and 1. Now, considering that the purchase costs 34 cents, it's clear that the tradesman gets 109, the buyer gets 71, and the stranger gets 28 cents from this pooled money. Therefore, it’s obvious at a glance that the 100-piece must go to the tradesman, and then the 50-piece must go to the buyer, leaving the 25-piece for the stranger. A quick look shows that the two 10-cent pieces must go to the buyer, because the tradesman now only needs 9 and the stranger needs 3. It then becomes clear that the buyer must take the 1 cent, the stranger must take the 3 cents, and the tradesman gets the 5, 2, and 2. To sum up, the tradesman takes 100, 5, 2, and 2; the buyer takes 50, 10, 10, and 1; the stranger takes 25 and 3. You’ll see that none of the three retains any of their own coins.
Of course the date on a penny is on the same side as Britannia—the "tail" side. Six pennies may be laid around another penny, all flat on the table, so that every one of them touches the central one. The number of threepenny-pieces that may be laid on the surface of a half-crown, so that no piece lies on another or overlaps the edge of the half-crown, is one. A second threepenny-piece will overlap the edge of the larger coin. Few people guess fewer than three, and many persons give an absurdly high number.
Of course, the date on a penny is on the same side as Britannia—the "tails" side. You can place six pennies around another penny, all flat on the table, so that each one touches the center penny. Only one threepenny piece can be laid on the surface of a half-crown without overlapping another piece or going over the edge of the half-crown. A second threepenny piece would overlap the edge of the larger coin. Most people guess fewer than three, while many guess a ridiculously high number.
If the three broken coins when perfect were worth 253 pence, and are now in their broken condition worth 240 pence, it should be obvious that 13/253 of the original value has been lost. And as the same fraction of each coin has been broken away, each coin has lost 13/253 of its original bulk.
If the three broken coins were worth 253 pence when they were intact, and are now worth 240 pence in their damaged state, it should be clear that 13/253 of the original value has been lost. Since the same fraction of each coin has been chipped away, each coin has lost 13/253 of its original mass.
In tossing with the five pennies all at the same time, it is obvious that there are 32 different ways in which the coins may fall, because the first coin may fall in either of two ways, then the second coin may also fall in either of two ways, and so on. Therefore five 2's multiplied together make 32. Now, how are these 32 ways made up? Here they are:—
In tossing the five pennies at once, it's clear that there are 32 different outcomes for how the coins can land. The first coin can fall in two ways, the second coin can also fall in two ways, and this continues for each coin. So, multiplying five 2's together gives us 32. Now, what are these 32 possible outcomes? Here they are:—
(a) | 5 | heads | 1 | way |
(b) | 5 | tails | 1 | way |
(c) | 4 | heads and 1 tail | 5 | ways |
(d) | 4 | tails and 1 head | 5 | ways |
(e) | 3 | heads and 2 tails | 10 | ways |
(f) | 3 | tails and 2 heads | 10 | ways |
Now, it will be seen that the only favourable cases are a, b, c, and d—12 cases. The remaining 20 cases are unfavourable, because they do Pg 151not give at least four heads or four tails. Therefore the chances are only 12 to 20 in your favour, or (which is the same thing) 3 to 5. Put another way, you have only 3 chances out of 8.
Now, it’s clear that the only favorable cases are a, b, c, and d—12 cases in total. The other 20 cases are unfavorable because they don’t result in at least four heads or four tails. So, the odds are only 12 to 20 in your favor, or (which means the same) 3 to 5. In other words, you have just 3 chances out of 8.
The amount that should be paid for a draw from the bag that contains three sovereigns and one shilling is 15s. 3d. Many persons will say that, as one's chances of drawing a sovereign were 3 out of 4, one should pay three-fourths of a pound, or 15s., overlooking the fact that one must draw at least a shilling—there being no blanks.
The amount to pay for a draw from a bag containing three sovereigns and one shilling is 15s. 3d. Many people might argue that since the chances of drawing a sovereign are 3 out of 4, you should pay three-fourths of a pound, or 15s., without realizing that you must draw at least a shilling—there are no blanks.
Without the hint that I gave, my readers would probably have been unanimous in deciding that Mr. Perkins's income must have been £1,710. But this is quite wrong. Mrs. Perkins says, "We have spent a third of his yearly income in rent," etc., etc.—that is, in two years they have spent an amount in rent, etc., equal to one-third of his yearly income. Note that she does not say that they have spent each year this sum, whatever it is, but that during the two years that amount has been spent. The only possible answer, according to the exact reading of her words, is, therefore, that his income was £180 per annum. Thus the amount spent in two years, during which his income has amounted to £360, will be £60 in rent, etc., £90 in domestic expenses, £20 in other ways, leaving the balance of £190 in the bank as stated.
Without the hint I provided, my readers might have all agreed that Mr. Perkins's income was £1,710. But that's completely wrong. Mrs. Perkins says, "We've spent a third of his yearly income on rent," etc.—that is, over two years they have spent an amount on rent, etc., equal to one-third of his yearly income. Note that she does not say they have spent each year this amount, whatever it is, but that during the two years that sum has been spent. The only possible conclusion, based on the exact wording of her statement, is that his income was £180 per year. Therefore, the amount spent in two years, during which his income has totaled £360, will be £60 on rent, etc., £90 on living expenses, £20 in other areas, leaving the bank balance of £190 as stated.
Nineteen shillings and ninepence may be paid in 458,908,622 different ways.
Nineteen shillings and nine pence can be paid in 458,908,622 different ways.
I do not propose to give my method of solution. Any such explanation would occupy an amount of space out of proportion to its interest or value. If I could give within reasonable limits a general solution for all money payments, I would strain a point to find room; but such a solution would be extremely complex and cumbersome, and I do not consider it worth the labour of working out.
I’m not planning to share my method for solving this. Any explanation would take up more space than it’s worth. If I could provide a general solution for all money payments within a reasonable length, I would try to make it fit; but such a solution would be really complicated and unwieldy, and I don’t think it’s worth the effort to figure it out.
Just to give an idea of what such a solution would involve, I will merely say that I find that, dealing only with those sums of money that are multiples of threepence, if we only use bronze coins any sum can be paid in (n+1)2 ways where n always represents the number of pence. If threepenny-pieces are admitted, there are
Just to give an idea of what such a solution would involve, I’ll just say that when dealing with amounts of money that are multiples of threepence, if we only use bronze coins, any total can be paid in (n+1)2 ways where n always represents the number of pence. If threepenny pieces are included, there are
2n3+15n2+33n | + 1 |
18 |
ways. If sixpences are also used there are
ways. If sixpences are also used, there are
n4+22n3+159n2+414n+216 |
216 |
ways, when the sum is a multiple of sixpence, and the constant, 216, changes to 324 when the money is not such a multiple. And so the formulas increase in complexity in an accelerating ratio as we go on to the other coins.
ways, when the total is a multiple of sixpence, and the constant, 216, changes to 324 when the money is not a multiple. So the formulas become more complex at an increasing rate as we move on to the other coins.
I will, however, add an interesting little table of the possible ways of changing our current coins which I believe has never been given in a book before. Change may be given for a
I will, however, add an interesting little table of the possible ways of changing our current coins, which I believe has never been presented in a book before. Change may be given for a
Farthing in | 0 way. |
Halfpenny in | 1 way. |
Penny in | 3 ways. |
Threepenny-piece in | 16 ways. |
Sixpence in | 66 ways. |
Shilling in | 402 ways. |
Florin in | 3,818 ways. |
Half-crown in | 8,709 ways. |
Double florin in | 60,239 ways. |
Crown in | 166,651 ways. |
Half-sovereign in | 6,261,622 ways. |
Sovereign in | 500,291,833 ways. |
It is a little surprising to find that a sovereign may be changed in over five hundred million different ways. But I have no doubt as to the correctness of my figures.
It’s somewhat surprising to discover that a sovereign can be changed in over five hundred million different ways. But I’m certain about the accuracy of my numbers.
(i) £13. (2) £23, 19s. 11d. The words "the number of pounds exceeds that of the pence" exclude such sums of money as £2, 16s. 2d. and all sums under £1.
(i) £13. (2) £23, 19s. 11d. The phrase "the number of pounds is greater than the number of pence" does not include amounts like £2, 16s. 2d. and any sums below £1.
The grocer was delayed half a minute and the draper eight minutes and a half (seventeen times as long as the grocer), making together nine minutes. Now, the grocer took twenty-four minutes to weigh out the sugar, and, with the half-minute delay, spent 24 min. 30 sec. over the task; but the draper had only to make forty-seven cuts to divide the roll of cloth, containing forty-eight yards, into yard pieces! This took him 15 min. 40 sec., and when we add the eight minutes and a half delay we get 24 min. 10 sec., from which it is clear that the draper won the race by twenty seconds. The majority of solvers make forty-eight cuts to divide the roll into forty-eight pieces!
The grocer was held up for half a minute and the draper for eight and a half minutes (which is seventeen times longer than the grocer), adding up to a total delay of nine minutes. The grocer took twenty-four minutes to weigh the sugar, and with the half-minute delay, spent 24 min. 30 sec. on that task; meanwhile, the draper only had to make forty-seven cuts to split the roll of cloth, which was forty-eight yards long, into yard pieces! This took him 15 min. 40 sec., and when we add the eight minutes and a half delay, we get 24 min. 10 sec., showing that the draper won the race by twenty seconds. Most people solving this problem make forty-eight cuts to separate the roll into forty-eight pieces!
As there were five droves with an equal number of animals in each drove, the number must be divisible by 5; and as every one of the eight dealers bought the same number of animals, the number must be divisible by 8. Therefore the number must be a multiple of 40. The highest possible multiple of 40 that will work will be found to be 120, and this number could be made up in one of two ways—1 ox, 23 pigs, and 96 sheep, or 3 oxen, 8 pigs, and 109 sheep. But the first is excluded by the statement that the animals consisted of "oxen, pigs, and sheep," because a single ox is not oxen. Therefore the second grouping is the correct answer.
Since there were five herds with the same number of animals in each herd, the total has to be divisible by 5; and since each of the eight dealers bought the same number of animals, the total has to be divisible by 8. Therefore, the total must be a multiple of 40. The highest multiple of 40 that works is 120, and this number can be made in one of two ways—1 ox, 23 pigs, and 96 sheep, or 3 oxen, 8 pigs, and 109 sheep. However, the first option is ruled out by the fact that the animals were referred to as "oxen, pigs, and sheep," because one ox does not qualify as oxen. So, the second grouping is the correct answer.
As there were the same number of boys as girls, it is clear that the number of children must be even, and, apart from a careful and exact reading of the question, there would be three different answers. There might be two, six, or fourteen children. In the first of these cases there Pg 152are ten different ways in which the apples could be bought. But we were told there was an equal number of "boys and girls," and one boy and one girl are not boys and girls, so this case has to be excluded. In the case of fourteen children, the only possible distribution is that each child receives one halfpenny apple. But we were told that each child was to receive an equal distribution of "apples," and one apple is not apples, so this case has also to be excluded. We are therefore driven back on our third case, which exactly fits in with all the conditions. Three boys and three girls each receive 1 halfpenny apple and 2 third-penny apples. The value of these 3 apples is one penny and one-sixth, which multiplied by six makes sevenpence. Consequently, the correct answer is that there were six children—three girls and three boys.
Since there were the same number of boys as girls, it’s clear that the total number of children must be even. Besides a careful and precise reading of the question, there would be three possible answers. There could be two, six, or fourteen children. In the first case, there are ten different ways in which the apples could be purchased. However, we were told there was an equal number of "boys and girls," and one boy and one girl don't count as boys and girls, so this case needs to be excluded. In the scenario with fourteen children, the only possible distribution is that each child receives one halfpenny apple. Since we were told that each child was to receive an equal distribution of "apples," and one apple isn’t apples, this case also needs to be excluded. Therefore, we go back to our third case, which fits all the conditions perfectly. Three boys and three girls each receive 1 halfpenny apple and 2 third-penny apples. The total value of these 3 apples is one penny and one-sixth, which multiplied by six equals sevenpence. Thus, the correct answer is that there were six children—three girls and three boys.
In solving this little puzzle we are concerned with the exact interpretation of the words used by the buyer and seller. I will give the question again, this time adding a few words to make the matter more clear. The added words are printed in italics.
In solving this small puzzle, we need to pay close attention to the exact meaning of the words used by the buyer and seller. I’ll restate the question, this time adding a few words to clarify things. The added words are in italics.
"A man went into a shop to buy chestnuts. He said he wanted a pennyworth, and was given five chestnuts. 'It is not enough; I ought to have a sixth of a chestnut more,' he remarked. 'But if I give you one chestnut more,' the shopman replied, 'you will have five-sixths too many.' Now, strange to say, they were both right. How many chestnuts should the buyer receive for half a crown?"
"A man walked into a shop to buy chestnuts. He said he wanted a penny's worth and was given five chestnuts. 'That's not enough; I should have one-sixth of a chestnut more,' he said. 'But if I give you one more chestnut,' the shopkeeper replied, 'you will have five-sixths too many.' Surprisingly, they were both correct. How many chestnuts should the buyer get for half a crown?"
The answer is that the price was 155 chestnuts for half a crown. Divide this number by 30, and we find that the buyer was entitled to 51/6 chestnuts in exchange for his penny. He was, therefore, right when he said, after receiving five only, that he still wanted a sixth. And the salesman was also correct in saying that if he gave one chestnut more (that is, six chestnuts in all) he would be giving five-sixths of a chestnut in excess.
The answer is that the price was 155 chestnuts for half a crown. Divide this number by 30, and we find that the buyer was entitled to 51/6 chestnuts for his penny. So, he was right when he said, after receiving only five, that he still wanted a sixth. And the salesman was also correct in saying that if he gave one more chestnut (that is, six chestnuts total), he would be giving five-sixths of a chestnut too much.
People give all sorts of absurd answers to this question, and yet it is perfectly simple if one just considers that the salesman cannot possibly have lost more than the cyclist actually stole. The latter rode away with a bicycle which cost the salesman eleven pounds, and the ten pounds "change;" he thus made off with twenty-one pounds, in exchange for a worthless bit of paper. This is the exact amount of the salesman's loss, and the other operations of changing the cheque and borrowing from a friend do not affect the question in the slightest. The loss of prospective profit on the sale of the bicycle is, of course, not direct loss of money out of pocket.
People give all kinds of ridiculous answers to this question, but it’s actually pretty straightforward if you think about it: the salesman couldn’t have lost more than what the cyclist actually stole. The cyclist rode off with a bike that cost the salesman eleven pounds, and the ten pounds in "change;" so he essentially made off with twenty-one pounds for a worthless piece of paper. This is the exact amount of the salesman’s loss, and the other things like cashing the cheque and borrowing from a friend don’t change that at all. The loss of potential profit from selling the bike isn’t the same as losing actual cash.
Bill must have paid 8s. per hundred for his oranges—that is, 125 for 10s. At 8s. 4d. per hundred, he would only have received 120 oranges for 10s. This exactly agrees with Bill's statement.
Bill must have paid 8s. per hundred for his oranges—that is, 125 for 10s. At 8s. 4d. per hundred, he would only have received 120 oranges for 10s. This aligns perfectly with Bill's statement.
The age of Mamma must have been 29 years 2 months; that of Papa, 35 years; and that of the child, Tommy, 5 years 10 months. Added together, these make seventy years. The father is six times the age of the son, and, after 23 years 4 months have elapsed, their united ages will amount to 140 years, and Tommy will be just half the age of his father.
Mamma must have been 29 years and 2 months old; Papa was 35 years old; and their child, Tommy, was 5 years and 10 months old. Adding these together gives a total of seventy years. The dad is six times the age of the son, and after 23 years and 4 months, their combined ages will reach 140 years, and Tommy will be exactly half the age of his father.
The gentleman's age must have been 54 years and that of his wife 45 years.
The man was probably 54 years old, and his wife was 45.
The ages were as follows: Billie, 3½ years; Gertrude, 1¾ year; Henrietta, 5¼ years; Charlie, 10½; years; and Janet, 21 years.
The ages were as follows: Billie, 3½ years; Gertrude, 1¾ year; Henrietta, 5¼ years; Charlie, 10½ years; and Janet, 21 years.
The age of the younger at marriage is always the same as the number of years that expire before the elder becomes twice her age, if he was three times as old at marriage. In our case it was eighteen years afterwards; therefore Mrs. Timpkins was eighteen years of age on the wedding-day, and her husband fifty-four.
The age of the younger person at marriage is always the same as the number of years that pass before the older one becomes twice their age, if he was three times as old at the time of marriage. In our case, it was eighteen years later; therefore, Mrs. Timpkins was eighteen years old on their wedding day, and her husband was fifty-four.
Miss Ada Jorkins must have been twenty-four and her little brother Johnnie three years of age, with thirteen brothers and sisters between. There was a trap for the solver in the words "seven times older than little Johnnie." Of course, "seven times older" is equal to eight times as old. It is surprising how many people hastily assume that it is the same as "seven times as old." Some of the best writers have committed this blunder. Probably many of my readers thought that the ages 24½ and 3½ were correct.
Miss Ada Jorkins must have been twenty-four, and her little brother Johnnie three years old, with thirteen siblings in between. There’s a trick in the phrase "seven times older than little Johnnie." Of course, "seven times older" means eight times as old. It’s surprising how many people quickly assume it’s the same as "seven times as old." Some of the best writers have made this mistake. Probably many of you thought that the ages 24½ and 3½ were accurate.
In four and a half years, when the daughter will be sixteen years and a half and the mother forty-nine and a half years of age.
In four and a half years, the daughter will be sixteen and a half, and the mother will be forty-nine and a half.
Marmaduke's age must have been twenty-nine years and two-fifths, and Mary's nineteen years and three-fifths. When Marmaduke was aged nineteen and three-fifths, Mary was only nine and four-fifths; so Marmaduke was at that time twice her age.
Marmaduke was twenty-nine and two-fifths years old, while Mary was nineteen and three-fifths. When Marmaduke was nineteen and three-fifths, Mary was only nine and four-fifths; at that point, Marmaduke was twice her age.
Rover's present age is ten years and Mildred's thirty years. Five years ago their respective Pg 153ages were five and twenty-five. Remember that we said "four times older than the dog," which is the same as "five times as old." (See answer to No. 44.)
Rover is currently ten years old, and Mildred is thirty. Five years ago, their ages were five and twenty-five. Remember, when we mentioned "four times older than the dog," that’s the same as saying "five times as old." (See answer to No. 44.)
Tommy Smart's age must have been nine years and three-fifths. Ann's age was sixteen and four-fifths, the mother's thirty-eight and two-fifths, and the father's fifty and two-fifths.
Tommy Smart was probably nine and three-fifths years old. Ann was sixteen and four-fifths, the mother was thirty-eight and two-fifths, and the father was fifty and two-fifths.
Mr. Jupp 39, Mrs. Jupp 34, Julia 14, and Joe 13; Mr. Simkin 42; Mrs. Simkin 40; Sophy 10; and Sammy 8.
Mr. Jupp, 39; Mrs. Jupp, 34; Julia, 14; and Joe, 13. Mr. Simkin, 42; Mrs. Simkin, 40; Sophy, 10; and Sammy, 8.
It will be found that when Herbert takes twelve, Robert and Christopher will take nine and fourteen respectively, and that they will have together taken thirty-five nuts. As 35 is contained in 770 twenty-two times, we have merely to multiply 12, 9, and 14 by 22 to discover that Herbert's share was 264, Robert's 198, and Christopher's 308. Then, as the total of their ages is 17½ years or half the sum of 12, 9, and 14, their respective ages must be 6, 4½, and 7 years.
It will be found that when Herbert takes 12, Robert and Christopher will take 9 and 14 respectively, and together they will have taken 35 nuts. Since 35 goes into 770 twenty-two times, we just need to multiply 12, 9, and 14 by 22 to find that Herbert's share was 264, Robert's was 198, and Christopher's was 308. Then, since the total of their ages is 17½ years or half the sum of 12, 9, and 14, their respective ages must be 6, 4½, and 7 years.
The age of Mary to that of Ann must be as 5 to 3. And as the sum of their ages was 44, Mary was 27½ and Ann 16½. One is exactly 11 years older than the other. I will now insert in brackets in the original statement the various ages specified: "Mary is (27½) twice as old as Ann was (13¾) when Mary was half as old (24¾) as Ann will be (49½) when Ann is three times as old (49½) as Mary was (16½) when Mary was (16½) three times as old as Ann (5½)." Now, check this backwards. When Mary was three times as old as Ann, Mary was 16½ and Ann 5½ (11 years younger). Then we get 49½ for the age Ann will be when she is three times as old as Mary was then. When Mary was half this she was 24¾. And at that time Ann must have been 13¾ (11 years younger). Therefore Mary is now twice as old—27½, and Ann 11 years younger—16½.
The ratio of Mary’s age to Ann’s age is 5 to 3. Since the total of their ages is 44, Mary is 27½ and Ann is 16½. One is exactly 11 years older than the other. I will now add in brackets the different ages noted in the original statement: "Mary is (27½) twice as old as Ann was (13¾) when Mary was half as old (24¾) as Ann will be (49½) when Ann is three times as old (49½) as Mary was (16½) when Mary was (16½) three times as old as Ann (5½)." Now, let’s verify this backward. When Mary was three times as old as Ann, Mary was 16½ and Ann was 5½ (11 years younger). Then we find that Ann will be 49½ when she is three times as old as Mary was then. When Mary was half of this, she was 24¾. At that time, Ann must have been 13¾ (11 years younger). Therefore, Mary is now twice as old—27½, and Ann is 11 years younger—16½.
If a man marries a woman, who dies, and he then marries his deceased wife's sister and himself dies, it may be correctly said that he had (previously) married the sister of his widow.
If a man marries a woman, she dies, and then he marries his late wife's sister and dies himself, it can be accurately said that he had previously married the sister of his widow.
The youth was not the nephew of Jane Brown, because he happened to be her son. Her surname was the same as that of her brother, because she had married a man of the same name as herself.
The young man was not Jane Brown's nephew; he was actually her son. She had the same last name as her brother because she married a man with the same name as her own.
The gentleman was the second lady's uncle.
The man was the second lady's uncle.
The party consisted of two little girls and a boy, their father and mother, and their father's father and mother.
The party included two little girls and a boy, their dad and mom, and their grandparents.

The letter m stands for "married." It will be seen that John Snoggs can say to Joseph Bloggs, "You are my father's brother-in-law, because my father married your sister Kate; you are my brother's father-in-law, because my brother Alfred married your daughter Mary; and you are my father-in-law's brother, because my wife Jane was your brother Henry's daughter."
The letter m represents "married." You can see that John Snoggs can tell Joseph Bloggs, "You are my father's brother-in-law, since my father married your sister Kate; you are my brother's father-in-law, because my brother Alfred married your daughter Mary; and you are my father-in-law's brother, because my wife Jane is your brother Henry's daughter."
If there are two men, each of whom marries the mother of the other, and there is a son of each marriage, then each of such sons will be at the same time uncle and nephew of the other. There are other ways in which the relationship may be brought about, but this is the simplest.
If two men marry each other's mothers and each has a son from those marriages, then each of those sons will be both an uncle and a nephew to the other. There are other ways this relationship can occur, but this is the simplest.
The time must have been 9.36 p.m. A quarter of the time since noon is 2 hr. 24 min., and a half of the time till noon next day is 7 hr. 12 min. These added together make 9 hr. 36 min.
The time must have been 9:36 p.m. A quarter of the time since noon is 2 hours and 24 minutes, and half of the time until noon the next day is 7 hours and 12 minutes. When you add these together, you get 9 hours and 36 minutes.
Twenty-six minutes.
26 minutes.
If the 65 minutes be counted on the face of the same watch, then the problem would be impossible: for the hands must coincide every 655/11 minutes as shown by its face, and it matters not whether it runs fast or slow; but if it is measured by true time, it gains 5/11 of a minute in 65 minutes, or 60/143 of a minute per hour.
If the 65 minutes are counted on the same watch, then the problem would be impossible: the hands must line up every 655/11 minutes as indicated on the dial, and it doesn’t matter if the watch is running fast or slow; but if measured by the correct time, it gains 5/11 of a minute in 65 minutes, or 60/143 of a minute per hour.
There are eleven different times in twelve hours when the hour and minute hands of a clock are exactly one above the other. If we divide 12 Pg 154hours by 11 we get 1 hr. 5 min. 273/11 sec., and this is the time after twelve o'clock when they are first together, and also the time that elapses between one occasion of the hands being together and the next. They are together for the second time at 2 hr. 10 min. 546/11 sec. (twice the above time); next at 3 hr. 16 min. 219/11 sec.; next at 4 hr. 21 min. 491/11 sec. This last is the only occasion on which the two hands are together with the second hand "just past the forty-ninth second." This, then, is the time at which the watch must have stopped. Guy Boothby, in the opening sentence of his Across the World for a Wife, says, "It was a cold, dreary winter's afternoon, and by the time the hands of the clock on my mantelpiece joined forces and stood at twenty minutes past four, my chambers were well-nigh as dark as midnight." It is evident that the author here made a slip, for, as we have seen above, he is 1 min. 491/11 sec. out in his reckoning.
There are eleven different times in twelve hours when the hour and minute hands of a clock are perfectly aligned. If we divide 12 Pg 154 hours by 11, we get 1 hour, 5 minutes, and 273/11 seconds. This is the time after twelve o'clock when they first align, and it’s also the interval between each occurrence of the hands being together. They align for the second time at 2 hours, 10 minutes, and 546/11 seconds (twice the previous time); then at 3 hours, 16 minutes, and 219/11 seconds; and at 4 hours, 21 minutes, and 491/11 seconds. This last instance is the only time when both hands are together with the second hand "just past the forty-ninth second." Therefore, this is when the watch must have stopped. Guy Boothby, in the opening sentence of his Across the World for a Wife, writes, "It was a cold, dreary winter's afternoon, and by the time the hands of the clock on my mantelpiece aligned at twenty minutes past four, my chambers were nearly as dark as midnight." It’s clear that the author made an error here, because, as we noted earlier, he is off by 1 minute and 491/11 seconds in his calculation.
There are thirty-six pairs of times when the hands exactly change places between three p.m. and midnight. The number of pairs of times from any hour (n) to midnight is the sum of 12 - (n + 1) natural numbers. In the case of the puzzle n = 3; therefore 12 - (3 + 1) = 8 and 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 = 36, the required answer.
There are thirty-six times when the hands of the clock swap places between 3 PM and midnight. The number of times from any hour (n) to midnight is the total of 12 - (n + 1) natural numbers. In this case, when n = 3, we have 12 - (3 + 1) = 8, and 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 = 36, which is the answer we need.
The first pair of times is 3 hr. 2157/143 min. and 4 hr. 16112/143 min., and the last pair is 10 hr. 5983/143 min. and 11 hr. 54138/143 min. I will not give all the remainder of the thirty-six pairs of times, but supply a formula by which any of the sixty-six pairs that occur from midday to midnight may be at once found:—
The first pair of times is 3 hr. 2157/143 min. and 4 hr. 16112/143 min., and the last pair is 10 hr. 5983/143 min. and 11 hr. 54138/143 min. I won’t list all the rest of the thirty-six pairs of times, but I’ll provide a formula that lets you quickly find any of the sixty-six pairs that occur from noon to midnight:—
a hr | 720b + 60a | min. and b hr. | 720a + 60b min. |
143 | 143 |
For the letter a may be substituted any hour from 0, 1, 2, 3 up to 10 (where nought stands for 12 o'clock midday); and b may represent any hour, later than a, up to 11.
For the letter a, you can use any hour from 0, 1, 2, 3 up to 10 (where zero represents 12 o'clock noon); and b can stand for any hour later than a, up to 11.
By the aid of this formula there is no difficulty in discovering the answer to the second question: a = 8 and b = 11 will give the pair 8 hr. 58106/143 min. and 11 hr. 44128/143 min., the latter being the time when the minute hand is nearest of all to the point IX—in fact, it is only 15/143 of a minute distant.
Using this formula makes it easy to find the answer to the second question: a = 8 and b = 11 will yield the pair 8 hr. 58106/143 min. and 11 hr. 44128/143 min., with the latter being the time when the minute hand is closest to the point IX—in fact, it is only 15/143 of a minute away.
Readers may find it instructive to make a table of all the sixty-six pairs of times when the hands of a clock change places. An easy way is as follows: Make a column for the first times and a second column for the second times of the pairs. By making a = 0 and b = 1 in the above expressions we find the first case, and enter hr. 55/143 min. at the head of the first column, and 1 hr. 060/143 min. at the head of the second column. Now, by successively adding 55/143 min. in the first, and 1 hr. 060/143 min. in the second column, we get all the eleven pairs in which the first time is a certain number of minutes after nought, or mid-day. Then there is a "jump" in the times, but you can find the next pair by making a = 1 and b = 2, and then by successively adding these two times as before you will get all the ten pairs after 1 o'clock. Then there is another "jump," and you will be able to get by addition all the nine pairs after 2 o'clock. And so on to the end. I will leave readers to investigate for themselves the nature and cause of the "jumps." In this way we get under the successive hours, 11 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 66 pairs of times, which result agrees with the formula in the first paragraph of this article.
Readers might find it helpful to create a table of all sixty-six pairs of times when the hands of a clock swap positions. A simple method is as follows: Create a column for the first times and a second column for the second times in each pair. By setting a = 0 and b = 1 in the expressions above, we find the first instance and enter 55/143 minutes at the top of the first column, and 1 hour 060/143 minutes at the top of the second column. Next, by adding 55/143 minutes in the first column and 1 hour 060/143 minutes in the second column repeatedly, we obtain all eleven pairs where the first time is a specific number of minutes after noon. After that, there's a "jump" in the times, but you can find the next pair by setting a = 1 and b = 2, and by adding these two times in the same manner, you'll acquire all ten pairs after 1 o'clock. Then there's another "jump," and you can get all nine pairs after 2 o'clock by addition. This process continues until the end. I will leave it to readers to explore the nature and cause of the "jumps." In this way, we end up with a total of 11 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 66 pairs of times, which aligns with the formula given in the first paragraph of this article.
Some time ago the principal of a Civil Service Training College, who conducts a "Civil Service Column" in one of the periodicals, had the query addressed to him, "How soon after XII o'clock will a clock with both hands of the same length be ambiguous?" His first answer was, "Some time past one o'clock," but he varied the answer from issue to issue. At length some of his readers convinced him that the answer is, "At 55/143 min. past XII;" and this he finally gave as correct, together with the reason for it that at that time the time indicated is the same whichever hand you may assume as hour hand!
Some time ago, the principal of a Civil Service Training College, who runs a "Civil Service Column" in one of the magazines, received a question: "How long after 12 o'clock will a clock with both hands of the same length be unclear?" His initial answer was, "A little past 1 o'clock," but he changed his response in each issue. Eventually, some of his readers persuaded him that the correct answer is "At 55/143 min. past 12;" and he finally accepted this, explaining that at that time the time shown is the same no matter which hand you consider as the hour hand!
The positions of the hands shown in the illustration could only indicate that the clock stopped at 44 min. 511143/1427 sec. after eleven o'clock. The second hand would next be "exactly midway between the other two hands" at 45 min. 52496/1427 sec. after eleven o'clock. If we had been dealing with the points on the circle to which the three hands are directed, the answer would be 45 min. 22106/1427 sec. after eleven; but the question applied to the hands, and the second hand would not be between the others at that time, but outside them.
The positions of the hands shown in the illustration mean that the clock stopped at 44 minutes and 511143/1427 seconds after eleven o'clock. The second hand will next be "exactly halfway between the other two hands" at 45 minutes and 52496/1427 seconds after eleven o'clock. If we were looking at the points on the circle that the three hands point to, the answer would be 45 minutes and 22106/1427 seconds after eleven; but the question was about the hands, and at that time, the second hand would not be between the others, but outside them.
The time indicated on the watch was 55/11 min. past 9, when the second hand would be at 273/11 sec. The next time the hands would be similar distances apart would be 546/11 min. past 2, when the second hand would be at 328/11 sec. But you need only hold the watch (or our previous illustration of it) in front of a mirror, when you will see the second time reflected in it! Of course, when reflected, you will read XI as I, X as II, and so on.
The time on the watch was 55/11 minutes past 9, when the second hand would be at 273/11 seconds. The next time the hands would be the same distance apart would be 546/11 minutes past 2, when the second hand would be at 328/11 seconds. But all you need to do is hold the watch (or our earlier illustration of it) in front of a mirror, and you'll see the second time reflected in it! Of course, when reflected, you'd read XI as I, X as II, and so on.
As a mere arithmetical problem this question presents no difficulty. In order that the hands shall all point to twelve o'clock at the same time, it is necessary that B shall gain at least twelve hours and that C shall lose twelve hours. As B gains a minute in a day of twenty-four hours, and C loses a minute in precisely the same time, it is evident that one will have gained 720 minutes (just twelve hours) in 720 days, and the other will have lost 720 minutes in 720 days. Clock A keeping perfect time, all three clocks must indicate twelve o'clock simultaneously at noon on the 720th day from April 1, 1898. What day of the month will that be?
As a simple math problem, this question is straightforward. For all the hands to point at twelve o'clock at the same time, B needs to gain at least twelve hours, and C needs to lose twelve hours. Since B gains one minute every day over a twenty-four-hour period, and C loses one minute in the same time, it's clear that B will have gained 720 minutes (which is twelve hours) in 720 days, while C will have lost 720 minutes in the same period. With Clock A keeping perfect time, all three clocks will show twelve o'clock together at noon on the 720th day from April 1, 1898. What day of the month will that be?
I published this little puzzle in 1898 to see Pg 155how many people were aware of the fact that 1900 would not be a leap year. It was surprising how many were then ignorant on the point. Every year that can be divided by four without a remainder is bissextile or leap year, with the exception that one leap year is cut off in the century. 1800 was not a leap year, nor was 1900. On the other hand, however, to make the calendar more nearly agree with the sun's course, every fourth hundred year is still considered bissextile. Consequently, 2000, 2400, 2800, 3200, etc., will all be leap years. May my readers live to see them. We therefore find that 720 days from noon of April 1, 1898, brings us to noon of March 22, 1900.
I published this little puzzle in 1898 to see Pg 155how many people knew that 1900 wasn't going to be a leap year. It was surprising how many were unaware of this fact. Any year that can be divided by four without a remainder is a leap year, except for the fact that one leap year is skipped in the century. 1800 wasn't a leap year, and neither was 1900. However, to align the calendar more closely with the sun's cycle, every fourth hundred years is still considered a leap year. So, 2000, 2400, 2800, 3200, and so on will all be leap years. I hope my readers live to see them. Therefore, we find that 720 days from noon on April 1, 1898, brings us to noon on March 22, 1900.
The time must have been 437/11 min. past two o'clock.
The time must have been 437/11 minutes past two o'clock.
The day of the week on which the conversation took place was Sunday. For when the day after to-morrow (Tuesday) is "yesterday," "to-day" will be Wednesday; and when the day before yesterday (Friday) was "to-morrow," "to-day" was Thursday. There are two days between Thursday and Sunday, and between Sunday and Wednesday.
The day of the week when the conversation happened was Sunday. Because when the day after tomorrow (Tuesday) is "yesterday," "today" will be Wednesday; and when the day before yesterday (Friday) was "tomorrow," "today" was Thursday. There are two days between Thursday and Sunday, and between Sunday and Wednesday.
The average speed is twelve miles an hour, not twelve and a half, as most people will hastily declare. Take any distance you like, say sixty miles. This would have taken six hours going and four hours returning. The double journey of 120 miles would thus take ten hours, and the average speed is clearly twelve miles an hour.
The average speed is twelve miles per hour, not twelve and a half, as most people quickly say. Take any distance you want, like sixty miles. This would take six hours to go and four hours to return. The round trip of 120 miles would thus take ten hours, and the average speed is clearly twelve miles per hour.
One train was running just twice as fast as the other.
One train was going twice as fast as the other.
Calling the three villages by their initial letters, it is clear that the three roads form a triangle, A, B, C, with a perpendicular, measuring twelve miles, dropped from C to the base A, B. This divides our triangle into two right-angled triangles with a twelve-mile side in common. It is then found that the distance from A to C is 15 miles, from C to B 20 miles, and from A to B 25 (that is 9 and 16) miles. These figures are easily proved, for the square of 12 added to the square of 9 equals the square of 15, and the square of 12 added to the square of 16 equals the square of 20.
Referring to the three villages by their initials, it's clear that the three roads create a triangle, A, B, C, with a perpendicular line measuring twelve miles dropped from C to the base A, B. This divides our triangle into two right triangles that share a side of twelve miles. It turns out that the distance from A to C is 15 miles, from C to B is 20 miles, and from A to B is 25 miles (which is 9 and 16 miles). These numbers are easy to verify, because the square of 12 plus the square of 9 equals the square of 15, and the square of 12 plus the square of 16 equals the square of 20.
The distance must be 6¾ miles.
The distance has to be 6¾ miles.
The distance must have been sixty miles. If Sir Edwyn left at noon and rode 15 miles an hour, he would arrive at four o'clock—an hour too soon. If he rode 10 miles an hour, he would arrive at six o'clock—an hour too late. But if he went at 12 miles an hour, he would reach the castle of the wicked baron exactly at five o'clock—the time appointed.
The distance must have been sixty miles. If Sir Edwyn left at noon and rode at 15 miles per hour, he would get there at four o'clock—an hour too early. If he rode at 10 miles per hour, he would arrive at six o'clock—an hour too late. But if he went at 12 miles per hour, he would reach the castle of the wicked baron right on time at five o'clock.
The machine must have gone at the rate of seven-twenty-fourths of a mile per minute and the wind travelled five-twenty-fourths of a mile per minute. Thus, going, the wind would help, and the machine would do twelve-twenty-fourths, or half a mile a minute, and returning only two-twenty-fourths, or one-twelfth of a mile per minute, the wind being against it. The machine without any wind could therefore do the ten miles in thirty-four and two-sevenths minutes, since it could do seven miles in twenty-four minutes.
The machine must have been going at a speed of seven-twenty-fourths of a mile per minute, while the wind was blowing at five-twenty-fourths of a mile per minute. So, going with the wind, the machine would make a total speed of twelve-twenty-fourths, or half a mile per minute, and coming back against the wind, it would only manage two-twenty-fourths, or one-twelfth of a mile per minute. Without any wind, the machine could cover ten miles in thirty-four and two-sevenths minutes since it could travel seven miles in twenty-four minutes.
The complete mile was run in nine minutes. From the facts stated we cannot determine the time taken over the first and second quarter-miles separately, but together they, of course, took four and a half minutes. The last two quarters were run in two and a quarter minutes each.
The entire mile was run in nine minutes. Based on the information provided, we can't figure out the time for the first and second quarter-miles separately, but together they took four and a half minutes. The last two quarters were run in two and a quarter minutes each.
Multiply together the number of potatoes, the number less one, and twice the number less one, then divide by 3. Thus 50, 49, and 99 multiplied together make 242,550, which, divided by 3, gives us 80,850 yards as the correct answer. The boy would thus have to travel 45 miles and fifteen-sixteenths—a nice little recreation after a day's work.
Multiply the number of potatoes by one less than that number, and then by two times one less than that number, and finally divide by 3. So, 50, 49, and 98 multiplied together give 242,550, which, when divided by 3, results in 80,850 yards as the right answer. The boy would then have to travel 45 miles and fifteen-sixteenths—a nice little break after a day's work.
Mr. Tompkins should have paid fifteen shillings as his correct share of the motor-car fare. He only shared half the distance travelled for £3, and therefore should pay half of thirty shillings, or fifteen shillings.
Mr. Tompkins should have paid fifteen shillings as his fair share of the car fare. He only covered half the distance traveled for £3, so he should pay half of thirty shillings, which is fifteen shillings.
Here the digital roots of the six numbers are 6, 4, 1, 2, 7, 9, which together sum to 29, whose digital root is 2. As the contents of the barrels sold must be a number divisible by 3, if one buyer purchased twice as much as the other, we must find a barrel with root 2, 5, or 8 to set on one side. There is only one barrel, that containing 20 gallons, that fulfils these conditions. So the man must have kept these 20 gallons of beer for his own use and sold one man 33 gallons (the 18-gallon and 15-gallon barrels) and sold the other man 66 gallons (the 16, 19, and 31 gallon barrels).
Here, the digital roots of the six numbers are 6, 4, 1, 2, 7, and 9, which add up to 29, whose digital root is 2. Since the total amount sold must be divisible by 3, and one buyer bought twice as much as the other, we need to set aside a barrel with a root of 2, 5, or 8. There’s only one barrel that meets these criteria, which is the 20-gallon barrel. Therefore, the man must have kept this 20 gallons of beer for himself and sold one buyer 33 gallons (the 18-gallon and 15-gallon barrels) and sold the other buyer 66 gallons (the 16, 19, and 31-gallon barrels).
The top row must be one of the four following numbers: 192, 219, 273, 327. The first was the example given.
The top row has to be one of these four numbers: 192, 219, 273, or 327. The first was the example provided.
As we have to exclude complex and improper fractions and recurring decimals, the simplest solution is this: 79 + 51/3 and 84 + 2/6, both equal 841/3. Without any use of fractions it is obviously impossible.
Since we need to avoid complex and improper fractions as well as recurring decimals, the easiest solution is this: 79 + 51/3 and 84 + 2/6, both equal 841/3. Clearly, it's impossible to do this without using fractions.
The smallest possible total is 356 = 107 + 249, and the largest sum possible is 981 = 235 + 746, or 657 + 324. The middle sum may be either 720 =134+586, or 702 = 134 + 568, or 407 = 138 + 269. The total in this case must be made up of three of the figures 0, 2, 4, 7, but no sum other than the three given can possibly be obtained. We have therefore no choice in the case of the first locker, an alternative in the case of the third, and any one of three arrangements in the case of the middle locker. Here is one solution:—
The smallest possible total is 356 = 107 + 249, and the largest sum possible is 981 = 235 + 746, or 657 + 324. The middle sum could be either 720 = 134 + 586, or 702 = 134 + 568, or 407 = 138 + 269. The total in this case must consist of three of the numbers 0, 2, 4, 7, but no sum other than the three given can be achieved. So, we have no choice for the first locker, an option for the third, and any of three arrangements for the middle locker. Here’s one solution:—
107 | 134 | 235 |
249 | 586 | 746 |
356 | 720 | 981 |
Of course, in each case figures in the first two lines may be exchanged vertically without altering the total, and as a result there are just 3,072 different ways in which the figures might be actually placed on the locker doors. I must content myself with showing one little principle involved in this puzzle. The sum of the digits in the total is always governed by the digit omitted. 9/9 - 7/10 - 5/11 - 3/12 - 1/13 - 8/14 - 6/15 - 4/16 - 2/17 - 0/18. Whichever digit shown here in the upper line we omit, the sum of the digits in the total will be found beneath it. Thus in the case of locker A we omitted 8, and the figures in the total sum up to 14. If, therefore, we wanted to get 356, we may know at once to a certainty that it can only be obtained (if at all) by dropping the 8.
Of course, in each case, the figures in the first two lines can be swapped vertically without changing the total. As a result, there are exactly 3,072 different ways the figures can be arranged on the locker doors. I’ll focus on one small principle involved in this puzzle. The sum of the digits in the total is always determined by the digit that's left out. 9/9 - 7/10 - 5/11 - 3/12 - 1/13 - 8/14 - 6/15 - 4/16 - 2/17 - 0/18. No matter which digit we leave out from the top line, the sum of the digits in the total will match what’s underneath it. For example, in the case of locker A, we left out 8, and the numbers in the total add up to 14. Therefore, if we want to get 356, we can be sure that it can only be achieved (if at all) by dropping the 8.
There are nine solutions to this puzzle, as follows, and no more:—
There are nine solutions to this puzzle, as follows, and no more:—
12 × 483 = 5,796 |
27 × 198 = 5,346 |
42 × 138 = 5,796 |
39 × 186 = 7,254 |
18 × 297 = 5,346 |
48 × 159 = 7,632 |
28 × 157 = 4,396 |
4 × 1,738 = 6,952 |
4 × 1,963 = 7,852 |
The seventh answer is the one that is most likely to be overlooked by solvers of the puzzle.
The seventh answer is the one that people are most likely to miss while solving the puzzle.
In this case a certain amount of mere "trial" is unavoidable. But there are two kinds of "trials"—those that are purely haphazard, and those that are methodical. The true puzzle lover is never satisfied with mere haphazard trials. The reader will find that by just reversing the figures in 23 and 46 (making the multipliers 32 and 64) both products will be 5,056. This is an improvement, but it is not the correct answer. We can get as large a product as 5,568 if we multiply 174 by 32 and 96 by 58, but this solution is not to be found without the exercise of some judgment and patience.
In this case, a certain amount of simple "trial" is unavoidable. However, there are two types of "trials"—those that are completely random and those that are systematic. A true puzzle enthusiast is never satisfied with random trials. The reader will discover that by just switching the numbers in 23 and 46 (making the multipliers 32 and 64), both products will be 5,056. This is an improvement, but it’s not the correct answer. We can achieve a product as large as 5,568 if we multiply 174 by 32 and 96 by 58, but this solution can’t be found without using some judgment and patience.
As I pointed out, it is quite easy so to arrange the counters that they shall form a pair of simple multiplication sums, each of which will give the same product—in fact, this can be done by anybody in five minutes with a little patience. But it is quite another matter to find that pair which gives the largest product and that which gives the smallest product.
As I mentioned, it’s pretty simple to set up the counters to create a pair of basic multiplication problems, each producing the same result—in fact, anyone can do this in about five minutes with a bit of patience. However, it’s a whole different challenge to find the pair that gives the largest product and the one that gives the smallest product.
Now, in order to get the smallest product, it is necessary to select as multipliers the two smallest possible numbers. If, therefore, we place 1 and 2 as multipliers, all we have to do is to arrange the remaining eight counters in such a way that they shall form two numbers, one of which is just double the other; and in doing this we must, of course, try to make the smaller number as low as possible. Of course the lowest number we could get would be 3,045; but this will not work, neither will 3,405, 3,450, etc., and it may be ascertained that 3,485 is the lowest possible. One of the required answers is 3,485 × 2 = 6,970, and 6,970 × 1 = 6,970.
To get the smallest product, we need to choose the two smallest multipliers. So, if we take 1 and 2 as multipliers, we just have to arrange the other eight counters to create two numbers, where one is double the other. In this process, we should try to keep the smaller number as low as possible. The lowest number we could achieve is 3,045, but that won't work, nor will 3,405, 3,450, and so on. It's actually determined that 3,485 is the lowest possible. One of the answers we need is 3,485 × 2 = 6,970, and 6,970 × 1 = 6,970.
The other part of the puzzle (finding the pair with the highest product) is, however, the real knotty point, for it is not at all easy to discover whether we should let the multiplier consist of one or of two figures, though it is clear that we must keep, so far as we can, the largest figures to the left in both multiplier and multiplicand. It will be seen that by the following arrangement so high a number as 58,560 may be obtained. Thus, 915 × 64 = 58,560, and 732 × 80 = 58,560.
The other part of the puzzle (finding the pair with the highest product) is really the tricky part, because it's not easy to figure out whether the multiplier should be one or two digits. However, it's clear that we need to keep the largest digits on the left in both the multiplier and the multiplicand as much as possible. You can see that with the following arrangement, we can get a high number like 58,560. For example, 915 × 64 = 58,560, and 732 × 80 = 58,560.
The solution that gives the smallest possible sum of digits in the common product is 23 × 174 = 58 × 69 = 4,002, and the solution that gives the largest possible sum of digits, 9 × 654 = 18 × 327 = 5,886. In the first case the digits sum to 6 and in the second case to 27. There is no way of obtaining the solution but by actual trial.
The solution that results in the smallest possible sum of digits in the common product is 23 × 174 = 58 × 69 = 4,002, and the solution that results in the largest possible sum of digits is 9 × 654 = 18 × 327 = 5,886. In the first case, the digits add up to 6, and in the second case, they add up to 27. There's no way to find the solution except through trial and error.
There are just six different solutions to this puzzle, as follows:—
There are only six different solutions to this puzzle, listed as follows:—
8 | multiplied by | 473 | equals | 3784 |
9 | " | 351 | " | 3159 |
15 | " | 93 | " | 1395 |
21 | " | 87 | " | 1287 |
27 | " | 81 | " | 2187 |
35 | " | 41 | " | 1435 |
It will be seen that in every case the two multipliers contain exactly the same figures as the product.
It will be clear that in every case, the two multipliers have exactly the same numbers as the product.
The highest product is, I think, obtained by multiplying 8,745,231 by 96—namely, 839,542,176.
The highest product, I believe, is gotten by multiplying 8,745,231 by 96—specifically, 839,542,176.
Dealing here with the problem generally, I have shown in the last puzzle that with three digits there are only two possible solutions, and with four digits only six different solutions.
Dealing with the problem overall, I demonstrated in the last puzzle that with three digits there are only two possible solutions, and with four digits, there are only six different solutions.
These cases have all been given. With five digits there are just twenty-two solutions, as follows:—
These cases have all been provided. With five digits, there are only twenty-two solutions, as follows:—
3 | x | 4128 | = | 12384 |
3 | x | 4281 | = | 12843 |
3 | x | 7125 | = | 21375 |
3 | x | 7251 | = | 21753 |
2541 | x | 6 | = | 15246 |
651 | x | 24 | = | 15624 |
678 | x | 42 | = | 28476 |
246 | x | 51 | = | 12546 |
57 | x | 834 | = | 47538 |
75 | x | 231 | = | 17325 |
624 | x | 78 | = | 48672 |
435 | x | 87 | = | 37845 |
—————— | ||||
9 | x | 7461 | = | 67149 |
72 | x | 936 | = | 67392 |
—————— | ||||
2 | x | 8714 | = | 17428 |
2 | x | 8741 | = | 17482 |
65 | x | 281 | = | 18265 |
65 | x | 983 | = | 63985 |
—————— | ||||
4973 | x | 8 | = | 39784 |
6521 | x | 8 | = | 52168 |
14 | x | 926 | = | 12964 |
86 | x | 251 | = | 21586 |
Now, if we took every possible combination and tested it by multiplication, we should need to make no fewer than 30,240 trials, or, if we at once rejected the number 1 as a multiplier, 28,560 trials—a task that I think most people would be inclined to shirk. But let us consider whether there be no shorter way of getting at the results required. I have already explained that if you add together the digits of any number and then, as often as necessary, add the digits of the result, you must ultimately get a number composed of one figure. This last number I call the "digital root." It is necessary in every solution of our problem that the root of the sum of the digital roots of our multipliers shall be the same as the root of their product. There are only four ways in which this can happen: when the digital roots of the multipliers are 3 and 6, or 9 and 9, or 2 and 2, or 5 and 8. I have divided the twenty-two answers above into these four classes. It is thus evident that the digital root of any product in the first two classes must be 9, and in the second two classes 4.
Now, if we considered every possible combination and tested it through multiplication, we would need to carry out at least 30,240 trials, or, if we eliminate the number 1 as a multiplier, 28,560 trials—a task that I believe most people would likely avoid. But let's think about whether there's a quicker method to get the required results. I’ve already explained that if you sum the digits of any number and then, as needed, keep summing the digits of the result, you will eventually get a single-digit number. I refer to this final number as the "digital root." It's essential in every solution to our problem that the root of the sum of the digital roots of our multipliers matches the root of their product. There are only four scenarios where this can occur: when the digital roots of the multipliers are 3 and 6, or 9 and 9, or 2 and 2, or 5 and 8. I've categorized the twenty-two results above into these four groups. Thus, it’s clear that the digital root of any product in the first two groups must be 9, and in the last two groups, it must be 4.
Owing to the fact that no number of five figures can have a digital sum less than 15 or more than 35, we find that the figures of our product must sum to either 18 or 27 to produce the root 9, and to either 22 or 31 to produce the root 4. There are 3 ways of selecting five different figures that add up to 18, there are 11 ways of selecting five figures that add up to 27, there are 9 ways of selecting five figures that add up to 22, and 5 ways of selecting five figures that add up to 31. There are, therefore, 28 different groups, and no more, from any one of which a product may be formed.
Since no five-digit number can have a digital sum less than 15 or more than 35, we find that the digits of our product must add up to either 18 or 27 to produce the root 9, and to either 22 or 31 to produce the root 4. There are 3 ways to choose five different digits that sum to 18, 11 ways to choose five digits that sum to 27, 9 ways to choose five digits that sum to 22, and 5 ways to choose five digits that sum to 31. Therefore, there are 28 different groups total, and no more, from which a product can be formed.
We next write out in a column these 28 sets of five figures, and proceed to tabulate the possible factors, or multipliers, into which they may be split. Roughly speaking, there would now appear to be about 2,000 possible cases to be tried, instead of the 30,240 mentioned above; but the process of elimination now begins, and if the reader has a quick eye and a clear head he can rapidly dispose of the large bulk of these cases, and there will be comparatively few test multiplications necessary. It would take far too much space to explain my own method in detail, but I will take the first set of figures in my table and show how easily it is done by the aid of little tricks and dodges that should occur to everybody as he goes along.
Next, we’ll list these 28 sets of five figures in a column and start tabulating the possible factors or multipliers into which they can be divided. Generally speaking, there seem to be about 2,000 possible cases to evaluate, instead of the 30,240 mentioned earlier; however, the elimination process begins now. If the reader has a keen eye and a clear mind, they can quickly eliminate the majority of these cases, and there will be relatively few multiplication tests required. It would take too much space to explain my method in detail, but I’ll take the first set of figures from my table and demonstrate how easily it can be done using simple tricks and tips that should come to mind as one progresses.
My first product group of five figures is 84,321. Here, as we have seen, the root of each factor must be 3 or a multiple of 3. As there is no 6 or 9, the only single multiplier is 3. Now, the remaining four figures can be arranged in 24 different ways, but there is no need to make 24 multiplications. We see at a glance that, in order to get a five-figure product, either the 8 or the 4 must be the first figure to the left. But unless the 2 is preceded on the right by the 8, it will produce when multiplied either a 6 or a 7, which must not occur. We are, therefore, reduced at once to the two cases, 3 × 4,128 and 3 × 4,281, both of which give correct solutions. Suppose next that we are trying the two-figure factor, 21. Here we see that if the number to be multiplied is under 500 the product will either have only four figures or begin with 10. Therefore we have only to examine the cases 21 × 843 and 21 × 834. But we know that the first figure will be repeated, and that the second figure will be twice the first figure added to the second. Consequently, as twice 3 added to 4 produces a nought in our product, the first case is at once rejected. It only remains to try the remaining case by multiplication, when we find it does not give a correct answer. If we are next trying the factor 12, we see at the start that neither the 8 nor the 3 can be in the units place, because they would produce a 6, and so on. A sharp eye and an alert judgment will enable us thus to run through our table in a much shorter time than would be expected. The process took me a little more than three hours.
My first group of five digits is 84,321. Here, as we’ve seen, each factor must have a root of 3 or a multiple of 3. Since there are no 6s or 9s, the only single multiplier is 3. The remaining four digits can be arranged in 24 different ways, but we don’t need to do 24 multiplications. We can quickly see that, to get a five-digit product, either the 8 or the 4 has to be the first digit on the left. However, if the 2 isn’t preceded by the 8 on the right, it will produce a 6 or a 7 when multiplied, which can't happen. So we narrow it down to the two cases, 3 × 4,128 and 3 × 4,281, both of which work. Now, let’s look at the two-digit factor, 21. Here, we can see that if the number being multiplied is under 500, the product will either have only four digits or start with 10. Therefore, we only need to check the cases 21 × 843 and 21 × 834. We know the first digit will be repeated, and that the second digit will be twice the first digit added to the second. So, since twice 3 plus 4 gives us a zero in our product, we can eliminate the first case right away. We’re left with the second case to multiply, but it doesn’t give the correct answer. Next, if we try the factor 12, we notice right away that neither the 8 nor the 3 can be in the units place because they would produce a 6, and so on. With a keen eye and quick judgment, we can go through our table much faster than expected. This process took me just a little over three hours.
I have not attempted to enumerate the solutions in the cases of six, seven, eight, and nine digits, but I have recorded nearly fifty examples with nine digits alone.
I haven't tried to list the solutions for cases with six, seven, eight, and nine digits, but I've documented nearly fifty examples just for nine digits.
If we multiply 32547891 by 6, we get the product, 195287346. In both cases all the nine digits are used once and once only.
If we multiply 32,547,891 by 6, we get the product, 195,287,346. In both cases, all nine digits are used once and only once.
Divide the ten checks into the following three groups: 7 1 5—4 6—3 2 8 9 0, and the first multiplied by the second produces the third.
Divide the ten checks into these three groups: 7 1 5—4 6—3 2 8 9 0, and the first multiplied by the second gives you the third.
It is convenient to consider the digits as arranged to form fractions of the respective values, one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, one-sixth, one-seventh, one-eighth, and one-ninth. I will first give the eight answers, as follows:—
It’s helpful to think of the digits as arranged to create fractions of their respective values: one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, one-sixth, one-seventh, one-eighth, and one-ninth. I will first provide the eight answers, as follows:—
6729/13458 = ½ |
5823/17469 = 1/3 |
3942/15768 = ¼ |
2697/13485 = 1/5 |
2943/17658 = 1/6 |
2394/16758 = 1/7 |
3187/25496 = 1/8 |
6381/57429 = 1/9 |
The sum of the numerator digits and the denominator digits will, of course, always be 45, and the "digital root" is 9. Now, if we separate the nine digits into any two groups, the sum of the two digital roots will always be 9. In fact, the two digital roots must be either 9—9, 8—1, 7—2, 6—3, or 5—4. In the first case the actual sum is 18, but then the digital root of this number is itself 9. The solutions in the cases of one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth, one-seventh, and one-ninth must be of the form 9—9; that is to say, the digital roots of both numerator and denominator will be 9. In the cases of one-half and one-fifth, however, the digital roots are 6—3, but of course the higher root may occur either in the numerator or in the denominator; thus 2697/13485, 2769/13845, 2973/14865, 3729/18645, where, in the first two arrangements, the roots of the numerator and denominator are respectively 6—3, and in the last two 3—6. The most curious case of all is, perhaps, one-eighth, for here the digital roots may be of any one of the five forms given above.
The total of the digits in the numerator and the digits in the denominator will always be 45, which means the "digital root" is 9. If we split the nine digits into any two groups, the sum of their digital roots will always equal 9. In fact, the two digital roots can be either 9—9, 8—1, 7—2, 6—3, or 5—4. In the first instance, the actual sum is 18, and the digital root of this number is also 9. The solutions for one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth, one-seventh, and one-ninth must be in the form of 9—9; meaning both the numerator and denominator's digital roots will be 9. However, for one-half and one-fifth, the digital roots are 6—3, but the higher root can appear either in the numerator or the denominator; for example, 2697/13485, 2769/13845, 2973/14865, 3729/18645, where in the first two examples, the roots of the numerator and denominator are 6—3, and in the last two, they are 3—6. The most interesting case is probably one-eighth, because here, the digital roots can take on any of the five forms listed above.
The denominators of the fractions being regarded as the numerators multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively, we must pay attention to the "carryings over." In order to get five figures in the product there will, of course, always be a carry-over after multiplying the last figure to the left, and in every case higher than 4 we must carry over at least three times. Consequently in cases from one-fifth to one-ninth we cannot produce different solutions by a mere change of position of pairs of figures, as, for example, we may with 5832/17496 and 5823/17469, where the 2/6 and 3/9 change places. It is true that the same figures may often be differently arranged, as shown in the two pairs of values for one-fifth that I have given in the last paragraph, but here it will be found there is a general readjustment of figures and not a simple changing of the positions of pairs. There are other little points that would occur to every solver—such as that the figure 5 cannot ever appear to the extreme right of the numerator, as this would result in our getting either a nought or a second 5 in the denominator. Similarly 1 cannot ever appear in the same position, nor 6 in the fraction one-sixth, nor an even figure in the fraction one-fifth, and so on. The preliminary consideration of such points as I have touched upon will not only prevent our wasting a lot of time in trying to produce impossible forms, but will lead us more or less directly to the desired solutions.
The denominators of the fractions are treated as the numerators multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, so we need to pay attention to the "carry-overs." To get five digits in the product, there will always be a carry-over after multiplying the last digit to the left, and in every case where the result is higher than 4, we need to carry over at least three times. Therefore, in cases from one-fifth to one-ninth, we can’t create different solutions just by swapping pairs of digits, like we can with 5832/17496 and 5823/17469, where the 2/6 and 3/9 swap places. It’s true that the same digits can often be arranged differently, as shown in the two pairs of values for one-fifth I mentioned in the last paragraph, but here it’s clear that there’s a general reorganization of digits, not just a simple swap of pairs. There are other small points that every solver would notice—like the fact that the digit 5 can never be at the far right of the numerator, as that would lead to either a zero or a second 5 in the denominator. Similarly, 1 can’t ever be in that position, nor can 6 in the fraction one-sixth, nor can an even digit in the fraction one-fifth, and so on. Considering these points will not only save us time from attempting impossible forms but will also help lead us more directly to the solutions we want.
The smallest possible sum of money is £1, 8s. 9¾d., the digits of which add to 25.
The smallest possible amount of money is £1, 8s. 9¾d., and the digits of that total add up to 25.
The problem of expressing the number 100 as a mixed number or fraction, using all the nine digits once, and once only, has, like all these digital puzzles, a fascinating side to it. The merest tyro can by patient trial obtain correct results, and there is a singular pleasure in discovering and recording each new arrangement akin to the delight of the botanist in finding some long-sought plant. It is simply a matter of arranging those nine figures correctly, and yet with the thousands of possible combinations that confront us the task is not so easy as might at first appear, if we are to get a considerable number of results. Here are eleven answers, including the one I gave as a specimen:—
The challenge of expressing the number 100 as a mixed number or fraction, using each of the nine digits exactly once, is just one of those intriguing digital puzzles. Even a complete beginner can achieve correct results with some patient trial and error, and there’s a unique satisfaction in discovering and recording each new arrangement, much like a botanist finding a rare plant after a long search. It’s simply about arranging those nine digits the right way, but with the thousands of possible combinations available, the task isn't as easy as it seems at first, especially if we want to generate a decent number of results. Here are eleven solutions, including the one I provided as an example:—
962148/537 |
961752/438 |
961428/357 |
941578/263 |
917524/836 |
915823/647 |
915742/638 |
823546/197 |
817524/396 |
815643/297 |
369258/714 |
Now, as all the fractions necessarily represent whole numbers, it will be convenient to deal with them in the following form: 96 + 4, 94 + 6, 91 + 9, 82 + 18, 81 + 19, and 3 + 97.
Now, since all the fractions represent whole numbers, it will be easier to work with them in this format: 96 + 4, 94 + 6, 91 + 9, 82 + 18, 81 + 19, and 3 + 97.
With any whole number the digital roots of the fraction that brings it up to 100 will always be of one particular form. Thus, in the case of 96 + 4, one can say at once that if any answers are obtainable, then the roots of both the numerator and the denominator of the fraction will be 6. Examine the first three arrangements given above, and you will find that this is so. In the case of 94 + 6 the roots of the numerator and denominator will be respectively 3—2, in the case of 91 + 9 and of 82 + 18 they will be 9—8, in the case of 81 + 19 they will be 9—9, and in the case of 3 + 97 they will be 3—3. Every fraction that can be employed has, therefore, its particular digital root form, and you are only wasting your time in unconsciously attempting to break through this law.
With any whole number, the digital roots of the fraction that adds up to 100 will always be of a specific form. So, in the case of 96 + 4, you can immediately say that if there are any possible answers, the roots of both the numerator and the denominator of the fraction will be 6. Check the first three arrangements listed above, and you’ll see this is true. In the case of 94 + 6, the roots of the numerator and denominator will be 3 and 2, respectively. For 91 + 9 and 82 + 18, they will be 9 and 8, respectively. In the case of 81 + 19, they will both be 9, and for 3 + 97, they will both be 3. Every fraction that can be used has its specific digital root form, and you’re just wasting your time if you try to ignore this rule.
Every reader will have perceived that certain whole numbers are evidently impossible. Thus, if there is a 5 in the whole number, there will also be a nought or a second 5 in the fraction, which are barred by the conditions. Then multiples of 10, such as 90 and 80, cannot of course occur, nor can the whole number conclude with a 9, like 89 and 79, because the fraction, equal to 11 or 21, will have 1 in the last place, and will therefore repeat a figure. Whole numbers that repeat a figure, such as 88 and 77, are also clearly useless. These cases, as I have said, are all obvious to every reader. But when I declare Pg 159that such combinations as 98 + 2, 92 + 8, 86 + 14, 83 + 17, 74 + 26, etc., etc., are to be at once dismissed as impossible, the reason is not so evident, and I unfortunately cannot spare space to explain it.
Every reader will have noticed that certain whole numbers are clearly impossible. For instance, if there’s a 5 in the whole number, there will also be a zero or a second 5 in the fraction, which is not allowed by the conditions. Therefore, multiples of 10 like 90 and 80 cannot occur, and whole numbers cannot end with a 9, like 89 and 79, because the fraction, equal to 11 or 21, will have a 1 in the last place, which would repeat a digit. Whole numbers that repeat a digit, such as 88 and 77, are clearly not useful either. As I mentioned, these cases are obvious to every reader. But when I state Pg 159 that combinations like 98 + 2, 92 + 8, 86 + 14, 83 + 17, 74 + 26, etc., should be dismissed as impossible, the reasoning isn't so evident, and I unfortunately can't provide space to explain it.
But when all those combinations have been struck out that are known to be impossible, it does not follow that all the remaining "possible forms" will actually work. The elemental form may be right enough, but there are other and deeper considerations that creep in to defeat our attempts. For example, 98 + 2 is an impossible combination, because we are able to say at once that there is no possible form for the digital roots of the fraction equal to 2. But in the case of 97 + 3 there is a possible form for the digital roots of the fraction, namely, 6—5, and it is only on further investigation that we are able to determine that this form cannot in practice be obtained, owing to curious considerations. The working is greatly simplified by a process of elimination, based on such considerations as that certain multiplications produce a repetition of figures, and that the whole number cannot be from 12 to 23 inclusive, since in every such case sufficiently small denominators are not available for forming the fractional part.
But when we eliminate all the combinations known to be impossible, it doesn’t mean that all the remaining "possible forms" will actually work. The basic form might be okay, but there are other deeper factors that can undermine our efforts. For example, 98 + 2 is an impossible combination because we can immediately see that there’s no viable form for the digital roots of the fraction equal to 2. However, in the case of 97 + 3, there is a possible form for the digital roots of the fraction, which is 6—5, and it’s only through further investigation that we find out this form can't actually be achieved because of some peculiar factors. The work is made a lot easier through a process of elimination, based on factors like certain multiplications causing repeated digits, and that the whole number can’t be from 12 to 23 inclusive, since in every such case, sufficiently small denominators aren’t available for forming the fractional part.
The point of the present puzzle lies in the fact that the numbers 15 and 18 are not capable of solution. There is no way of determining this without trial. Here are answers for the ten possible numbers:—
The main issue with this puzzle is that the numbers 15 and 18 cannot be solved. You can’t find this out without testing. Here are the answers for the ten possible numbers:—
95472/1368 | = | 13; |
96435/1287 | = | 14; |
123576/894 | = | 16; |
613258/947 | = | 20; |
159432/786 | = | 27; |
249756/813 | = | 36; |
275148/396 | = | 40; |
651892/473 | = | 69; |
593614/278 | = | 72; |
753648/192 | = | 94. |
I have only found the one arrangement for each of the numbers 16, 20, and 27; but the other numbers are all capable of being solved in more than one way. As for 15 and 18, though these may be easily solved as a simple fraction, yet a "mixed fraction" assumes the presence of a whole number; and though my own idea for dodging the conditions is the following, where the fraction is both complex and mixed, it will be fairer to keep exactly to the form indicated:—
I have only discovered one way to arrange the numbers 16, 20, and 27; however, the other numbers can be solved in multiple ways. As for 15 and 18, while they can be easily solved as simple fractions, a "mixed fraction" requires a whole number. My own approach to bypassing the conditions is as follows: where the fraction is both complex and mixed, it’s better to stick closely to the specified form:—
38952/746/1 = 15 |
95742/638/1 = 18 |
I have proved the possibility of solution for all numbers up to 100, except 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, and 18. The first three are easily shown to be impossible. I have also noticed that numbers whose digital root is 8—such as 26, 35, 44, 53, etc.—seem to lend themselves to the greatest number of answers. For the number 26 alone I have recorded no fewer than twenty-five different arrangements, and I have no doubt that there are many more.
I have demonstrated that a solution is possible for all numbers up to 100, except for 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, and 18. The first three are clearly impossible. I've also observed that numbers with a digital root of 8—like 26, 35, 44, 53, etc.—tend to have the most solutions. For the number 26 alone, I’ve documented at least twenty-five different arrangements, and I'm sure there are many more.
So far as I know, there are no published tables of square numbers that go sufficiently high to be available for the purposes of this puzzle. The lowest square number containing all the nine digits once, and once only, is 139,854,276, the square of 11,826. The highest square number under the same conditions is, 923,187,456, the square of 30,384.
As far as I know, there aren’t any published tables of square numbers that go high enough to be useful for this puzzle. The smallest square number that includes all nine digits exactly once is 139,854,276, which is the square of 11,826. The largest square number with the same criteria is 923,187,456, the square of 30,384.
Most people know that if the sum of the digits in the odd places of any number is the same as the sum of the digits in the even places, then the number is divisible by 11 without remainder. Thus in 896743012 the odd digits, 20468, add up 20, and the even digits, 1379, also add up 20. Therefore the number may be divided by 11. But few seem to know that if the difference between the sum of the odd and the even digits is 11, or a multiple of 11, the rule equally applies. This law enables us to find, with a very little trial, that the smallest number containing nine of the ten digits (calling nought a digit) that is divisible by 11 is 102,347,586, and the highest number possible, 987,652,413.
Most people know that if the sum of the digits in the odd positions of any number equals the sum of the digits in the even positions, then that number is divisible by 11 without any remainder. For example, in 896743012, the odd digits, 20468, add up to 20, and the even digits, 1379, also add up to 20. So, this number can be divided by 11. However, not many realize that if the difference between the sum of the odd and even digits is 11 or a multiple of 11, the rule still applies. This principle helps us quickly determine that the smallest number containing nine of the ten digits (counting zero as a digit) that is divisible by 11 is 102,347,586, while the largest possible number is 987,652,413.
There is a very large number of different ways in which arithmetical signs may be placed between the nine digits, arranged in numerical order, so as to give an expression equal to 100. In fact, unless the reader investigated the matter very closely, he might not suspect that so many ways are possible. It was for this reason that I added the condition that not only must the fewest possible signs be used, but also the fewest possible strokes. In this way we limit the problem to a single solution, and arrive at the simplest and therefore (in this case) the best result.
There are a lot of different ways to place arithmetic signs between the nine digits arranged in numerical order to create an expression that equals 100. In fact, if you don't look into it closely, you might not realize how many possibilities exist. That’s why I added the requirement that not only must we use the fewest signs possible, but also the fewest strokes. This narrows down the problem to a single solution, leading us to the simplest and thus (in this case) the best result.
Just as in the case of magic squares there are methods by which we may write down with the greatest ease a large number of solutions, but not all the solutions, so there are several ways in which we may quickly arrive at dozens of arrangements of the "Digital Century," without finding all the possible arrangements. There is, in fact, very little principle in the thing, and there is no certain way of demonstrating that we have got the best possible solution. All I can say is that the arrangement I shall give as the best is the best I have up to the present succeeded in discovering. I will give the reader a few interesting specimens, the first being the solution usually published, and the last the best solution that I know.
Just like with magic squares, there are methods that allow us to easily create a lot of solutions, but not every possible solution. Similarly, there are several ways to quickly generate dozens of configurations of the "Digital Century," without identifying all potential arrangements. In fact, there's very little principle behind it, and there's no guaranteed method to prove we've found the best possible solution. What I can say is that the arrangement I'll present as the best is the best I've been able to find so far. I'll share a few interesting examples, with the first being the commonly published solution and the last being the best solution I know.
Signs. | Strokes. | ||
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + (8 × 9) = 100 | ( 9 | .. | 18) |
(1 × 2) - 3 - 4 - 5 + (6 × 7) + (8 × 9) = 100 | (12 | .. | 20) |
1 + (2 × 3) + (4 × 5) - 6 + 7 + (8 × 9) = 100 | (11 | .. | 21) |
(1 + 2 - 3 - 4)(5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9) = 100 | ( 9 | .. | 12) |
1 + (2 × 3) + 4 + 5 + 67 + 8 + 9 = 100 | (8 | .. | 16) |
(1 × 2) + 34 + 56 + 7 - 8 + 9 = 100 | (7 | .. | 13) |
12 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 67 + 8 + 9 = 100 | (6 | .. | 11) |
123 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 + 8 - 9 = 100 | (6 | .. | 7) |
123 + 4 - 5 + 67 - 8 - 9 = 100 | (4 | .. | 6) |
123 + 45 - 67 + 8 - 9 = 100 | (4 | .. | 6) |
123 - 45 - 67 + 89 = 100 | (3 | .. | 4) |
It will be noticed that in the above I have counted the bracket as one sign and two strokes. The last solution is singularly simple, and I do not think it will ever be beaten.
It will be noticed that in the above I have counted the bracket as one sign and two strokes. The last solution is remarkably simple, and I don't think it will ever be surpassed.
The way to write four sevens with simple arithmetical signs so that they represent 100 is as follows:—
The way to write four sevens with basic math symbols to equal 100 is as follows:—
Of course the fraction, 7 over decimal 7, equals 7 divided by 7/10, which is the same as 70 divided by 7, or 10. Then 10 multiplied by 10 is 100, and there you are! It will be seen that this solution applies equally to any number whatever that you may substitute for 7.
Of course, the fraction 7 over 0.7 equals 7 divided by 7/10, which is the same as 70 divided by 7, or 10. Then 10 multiplied by 10 is 100, and there you go! This solution works the same for any number you want to replace with 7.
The sum of all the numbers that can be formed with any given set of four different figures is always 6,666 multiplied by the sum of the four figures. Thus, 1, 2, 3, 4 add up 10, and ten times 6,666 is 66,660. Now, there are thirty-five different ways of selecting four figures from the seven on the dice—remembering the 6 and 9 trick. The figures of all these thirty-five groups add up to 600. Therefore 6,666 multiplied by 600 gives us 3,999,600 as the correct answer.
The total of all the numbers that can be created with any set of four different digits is always 6,666 multiplied by the sum of those four digits. For example, 1, 2, 3, and 4 add up to 10, and ten times 6,666 equals 66,660. There are thirty-five different ways to choose four digits from the seven on the dice—keeping the 6 and 9 trick in mind. The total of all these thirty-five groups adds up to 600. So, 6,666 multiplied by 600 gives us 3,999,600 as the final answer.
Let us discard the dice and deal with the problem generally, using the nine digits, but excluding nought. Now, if you were given simply the sum of the digits—that is, if the condition were that you could use any four figures so long as they summed to a given amount—then we have to remember that several combinations of four digits will, in many cases, make the same sum.
Let's set aside the dice and tackle the problem as a whole, using the nine digits but leaving out zero. Now, if you were only given the total of the digits—that is, if the requirement was that you could use any four numbers as long as they added up to a specific amount—then we need to keep in mind that several combinations of four numbers can, in many instances, produce the same total.
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
11 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Here the top row of numbers gives all the possible sums of four different figures, and the bottom row the number of different ways in which each sum may be made. For example 13 may be made in three ways: 1237, 1246, and 1345. It will be found that the numbers in the bottom row add up to 126, which is the number of combinations of nine figures taken four at a time. From this table we may at once calculate the answer to such a question as this: What is the sum of all the numbers composed of our different digits (nought excluded) that add up to 14? Multiply 14 by the number beneath t in the table, 5, and multiply the result by 6,666, and you will have the answer. It follows that, to know the sum of all the numbers composed of four different digits, if you multiply all the pairs in the two rows and then add the results together, you will get 2,520, which, multiplied by 6,666, gives the answer 16,798,320.
Here, the top row of numbers shows all the possible sums of four different figures, while the bottom row indicates the number of different ways each sum can be achieved. For instance, 13 can be made in three ways: 1237, 1246, and 1345. You will notice that the numbers in the bottom row add up to 126, which represents the combinations of nine figures taken four at a time. From this table, we can easily calculate the answer to a question like: What is the sum of all the numbers formed by our different digits (zero excluded) that total 14? Multiply 14 by the number beneath it in the table, 5, and then multiply the result by 6,666 to get the answer. Therefore, to find the sum of all the numbers made up of four different digits, if you multiply all the pairs in the two rows together and then add the results, you will arrive at 2,520, which, when multiplied by 6,666, gives the final answer of 16,798,320.
The following general solution for any number of digits will doubtless interest readers. Let n represent number of digits, then 5 (10n - 1) ) 8! divided by (9 - n)! equals the required sum. Note that 0! equals 1. This may be reduced to the following practical rule: Multiply together 4 × 7 × 6 × 5 ... to (n - 1) factors; now add (n + 1) ciphers to the right, and from this result subtract the same set of figures with a single cipher to the right. Thus for n = 4 (as in the case last mentioned), 4 × 7 × 6 = 168. Therefore 16,800,000 less 1,680 gives us 16,798,320 in another way.
The following general solution for any number of digits will surely interest readers. Let n represent the number of digits, then 5 (10n - 1) ) 8! divided by (9 - n)! equals the required sum. Note that 0! equals 1. This can be simplified to the following practical rule: Multiply together 4 × 7 × 6 × 5 ... up to (n - 1) factors; now add (n + 1) digits to the right, and from this result subtract the same set of numbers with one digit moved to the right. So for n = 4 (as in the previous example), 4 × 7 × 6 = 168. Therefore 16,800,000 minus 1,680 gives us 16,798,320 in another way.
The ordinary schoolboy would correctly treat this as a quadratic equation. Here is the actual arithmetic. Double the product of the two distances from the walls. This gives us 144, which is the square of 12. The sum of the two distances is 17. If we add these two numbers, 12 and 17, together, and also subtract one from the other, we get the two answers that 29 or 5 was the radius, or half-diameter, of the table. Consequently, the full diameter was 58 in. or 10 in. But a table of the latter dimensions would be absurd, and not at all in accordance with the illustration. Therefore the table must have been 58 in. in diameter. In this case the spot was on the edge nearest to the corner of the room—to which the boy was pointing. If the other answer were admissible, the spot would be on the edge farthest from the corner of the room.
The typical schoolboy would recognize this as a quadratic equation. Here’s the math: double the product of the two distances from the walls. This gives us 144, which is 12 squared. The sum of the two distances is 17. If we add these two numbers, 12 and 17, and also subtract one from the other, we find the two potential answers: 29 or 5 could be the radius, or half the diameter, of the table. Therefore, the full diameter would be 58 inches or 10 inches. However, a table of the latter size would be ridiculous and not at all consistent with the illustration. So, the table must have been 58 inches in diameter. In this situation, the spot was on the edge nearest to the corner of the room that the boy was pointing to. If the other answer were valid, the spot would be on the edge farthest from the corner of the room.
There must have been ten boys and twenty girls. The number of bows girl to girl was therefore 380, of boy to boy 90, of girl with boy 400, and of boys and girls to teacher 30, making together 900, as stated. It will be remembered that it was not said that the teacher himself returned the bows of any child.
There were probably ten boys and twenty girls. The number of bows from girl to girl was 380, from boy to boy was 90, from girl to boy was 400, and from boys and girls to the teacher was 30, totaling 900, as mentioned. Remember, it wasn't stated that the teacher himself returned any child's bows.
The value of the large central pearl must have been £3,000. The pearl at one end (from which they increased in value by £100) was £1,400; the pearl at the other end, £600.
The large central pearl was probably worth £3,000. The pearl at one end (which increased in value by £100) was £1,400; the pearl at the other end was £600.
The man said, "I am going twice as deep," not "as deep again." That is to say, he was still going twice as deep as he had gone already, so Pg 161that when finished the hole would be three times its present depth. Then the answer is that at present the hole is 3 ft. 6 in. deep and the man 2 ft. 4 in. above ground. When completed the hole will be 10 ft. 6 in. deep, and therefore the man will then be 4 ft. 8 in. below the surface, or twice the distance that he is now above ground.
The man said, "I'm going twice as deep," not "as deep again." In other words, he was still going twice as deep as he had already gone, so Pg 161when he finished, the hole would be three times its current depth. So, right now, the hole is 3 ft. 6 in. deep, and the man is 2 ft. 4 in. above ground. When it's done, the hole will be 10 ft. 6 in. deep, meaning the man will be 4 ft. 8 in. below the surface, which is twice the distance he is currently above ground.
Add together the ten weights and divide by 4, and we get 289 lbs. as the weight of the five trusses together. If we call the five trusses in the order of weight A, B, C, D, and E, the lightest being A and the heaviest E, then the lightest, no lbs., must be the weight of A and B; and the next lightest, 112 lbs., must be the weight of A and C. Then the two heaviest, D and E, must weigh 121 lbs., and C and E must weigh 120 lbs. We thus know that A, B, D, and E weigh together 231 lbs., which, deducted from 289 lbs. (the weight of the five trusses), gives us the weight of C as 58 lbs. Now, by mere subtraction, we find the weight of each of the five trusses—54 lbs., 56 lbs., 58 lbs., 59 lbs., and 62 lbs. respectively.
Add up the ten weights and divide by 4, and we find that the total weight of the five trusses is 289 lbs. If we label the five trusses by their weight as A, B, C, D, and E, with A being the lightest and E the heaviest, then the lightest, which is no lbs., must be the weight of A and B; the next lightest, 112 lbs., must be the weight of A and C. The two heaviest, D and E, must weigh 121 lbs., and C and E must weigh 120 lbs. We can conclude that A, B, D, and E weigh a total of 231 lbs., which, when subtracted from 289 lbs. (the total weight of the five trusses), gives us the weight of C as 58 lbs. Now, by simple subtraction, we can determine the weight of each of the five trusses: 54 lbs., 56 lbs., 58 lbs., 59 lbs., and 62 lbs., respectively.
The candles must have burnt for three hours and three-quarters. One candle had one-sixteenth of its total length left and the other four-sixteenths.
The candles must have burned for three hours and forty-five minutes. One candle had an eighth of its total length left and the other had a quarter.
Pat must have painted six more posts than Tim, no matter how many lamp-posts there were. For example, suppose twelve on each side; then Pat painted fifteen and Tim nine. If a hundred on each side, Pat painted one hundred and three, and Tim only ninety-seven
Pat must have painted six more posts than Tim, regardless of how many lamp posts there were. For example, if there were twelve on each side; then Pat painted fifteen and Tim painted nine. If there were a hundred on each side, Pat painted one hundred and three, while Tim only painted ninety-seven.
The constable took thirty steps. In the same time the thief would take forty-eight, which, added to his start of twenty-seven, carried him seventy-five steps. This distance would be exactly equal to thirty steps of the constable.
The constable walked thirty steps. Meanwhile, the thief took forty-eight steps, which, when combined with his head start of twenty-seven steps, brought him a total of seventy-five steps. This distance was exactly equal to the thirty steps of the constable.
The voter can vote for one candidate in 23 ways, for two in 253 ways, for three in 1,771, for four in 8,855, for five in 33,649, for six in 100,947, for seven in 245,157, for eight in 490,314, and for nine candidates in 817,190 different ways. Add these together, and we get the total of 1,698,159 ways of voting.
The voter can choose one candidate in 23 ways, two candidates in 253 ways, three in 1,771 ways, four in 8,855 ways, five in 33,649 ways, six in 100,947 ways, seven in 245,157 ways, eight in 490,314 ways, and nine candidates in 817,190 different ways. When you add these up, the total comes to 1,698,159 ways of voting.
The numbers of votes polled respectively by the Liberal, the Conservative, the Independent, and the Socialist were 1,553, 1,535, 1,407, and 978 All that was necessary was to add the sum of the three majorities (739) to the total poll of 5,473 (making 6,212) and divide by 4, which gives us 1,553 as the poll of the Liberal. Then the polls of the other three candidates can, of course, be found by deducting the successive majorities from the last-mentioned number.
The number of votes received by the Liberal, Conservative, Independent, and Socialist parties were 1,553, 1,535, 1,407, and 978, respectively. To find the Liberal's total, you just need to add the three majorities (739) to the overall total of 5,473 (which makes 6,212) and divide by 4, resulting in 1,553 for the Liberal. The vote totals for the other three candidates can simply be found by subtracting the successive majorities from this final number.
Eighteen were present at the meeting and eleven left. If twelve had gone, two-thirds would have retired. If only nine had gone, the meeting would have lost half its members.
Eighteen were at the meeting and eleven left. If twelve had left, two-thirds would have dropped out. If only nine had left, the meeting would have lost half its members.
The correct and only answer is that 11,616 ladies made proposals of marriage. Here are all the details, which the reader can check for himself with the original statements. Of 10,164 spinsters, 8,085 married bachelors, 627 married widowers, 1,221 were declined by bachelors, and 231 declined by widowers. Of the 1,452 widows, 1,155 married bachelors, and 297 married widowers. No widows were declined. The problem is not difficult, by algebra, when once we have succeeded in correctly stating it.
The correct and only answer is that 11,616 women made marriage proposals. Here are all the details, which the reader can verify with the original statements. Out of 10,164 single women, 8,085 married bachelors, 627 married widowers, 1,221 proposals were turned down by bachelors, and 231 declined by widowers. Of the 1,452 widows, 1,155 married bachelors, and 297 married widowers. No widows had their proposals turned down. The problem isn't hard, using algebra, once we've managed to state it correctly.
The smallest number of sugar plums that will fulfil the conditions is 26,880. The five boys obtained respectively: Andrew, 2,863; Bob, 6,335; Charlie, 2,438; David, 10,294; Edgar, 4,950. There is a little trap concealed in the words near the end, "one-fifth of the same," that seems at first sight to upset the whole account of the affair. But a little thought will show that the words could only mean "one-fifth of five-eighths", the fraction last mentioned—that is, one-eighth of the three-quarters that Bob and Andrew had last acquired.
The smallest number of sugar plums that meet the conditions is 26,880. The five boys received the following amounts: Andrew, 2,863; Bob, 6,335; Charlie, 2,438; David, 10,294; Edgar, 4,950. There's a little trick hidden in the phrase near the end, "one-fifth of the same," which seems to mess up the whole situation at first. But a bit of thought will reveal that it can only mean "one-fifth of five-eighths," the last fraction mentioned—that is, one-eighth of the three-quarters that Bob and Andrew had just received.
The only answer is that there were 5 men, 25 women, and 70 children. There were thus 100 persons in all, 5 times as many women as men, and as the men would together receive 15 bushels, the women 50 bushels, and the children 35 bushels, exactly 100 bushels would be distributed.
The only answer is that there were 5 men, 25 women, and 70 children. That means there were 100 people in total, with 5 times as many women as men. The men would receive 15 bushels together, the women 50 bushels, and the children 35 bushels, making a total of exactly 100 bushels distributed.
The whole field must have contained 46.626 square rods. The side of the central square, left by the farmer, is 4.8284 rods, so it contains 23.313 square rods. The area of the field was thus something more than a quarter of an acre and less than one-third; to be more precise, .2914 of an acre.
The entire field must have been 46.626 square rods. The side of the central square, which the farmer left, is 4.8284 rods, so it covers 23.313 square rods. The area of the field was therefore just over a quarter of an acre and less than a third; to be more precise, .2914 of an acre.
As the share of Charles falls in through his death, we have merely to divide the whole hundred acres between Alfred and Benjamin in the proportion of one-third to one-fourth—that is in the proportion of four-twelfths to three-Pg 162twelfths, which is the same as four to three. Therefore Alfred takes four-sevenths of the hundred acres and Benjamin three-sevenths.
As Charles's share is redistributed after his death, we just need to split the entire hundred acres between Alfred and Benjamin in the ratio of one-third to one-fourth—that is, in the ratio of four-twelfths to three-twelfths, which is equivalent to four to three. So, Alfred receives four-sevenths of the hundred acres and Benjamin gets three-sevenths.
The other number that answers all the requirements of the puzzle is 9,801. If we divide this in the middle into two numbers and add them together we get 99, which, multiplied by itself, produces 9,801. It is true that 2,025 may be treated in the same way, only this number is excluded by the condition which requires that no two figures should be alike.
The other number that meets all the puzzle's requirements is 9,801. If we split this in the middle into two numbers and add them together, we get 99, which, when multiplied by itself, gives us 9,801. It's true that 2,025 can be treated the same way, but this number is excluded by the condition that no two digits can be the same.
The general solution is curious. Call the number of figures in each half of the torn label n. Then, if we add 1 to each of the exponents of the prime factors (other than 3) of 10n - 1 (1 being regarded as a factor with the constant exponent, 1), their product will be the number of solutions. Thus, for a label of six figures, n = 3. The factors of 10n - 1 are 11 × 371 (not considering the 33), and the product of 2 × 2 = 4, the number of solutions. This always includes the special cases 98 - 01, 00 - 01, 998 - 01, 000 - 001, etc. The solutions are obtained as follows:—Factorize 103 - 1 in all possible ways, always keeping the powers of 3 together, thus, 37 × 27, 999 × 1. Then solve the equation 37x = 27y + 1. Here x = 19 and y = 26. Therefore, 19 × 37 = 703, the square of which gives one label, 494,209. A complementary solution (through 27x = 37x + 1) can at once be found by 10n - 703 = 297, the square of which gives 088,209 for second label. (These non-significant noughts to the left must be included, though they lead to peculiar cases like 00238 - 04641 = 48792, where 0238 - 4641 would not work.) The special case 999 × 1 we can write at once 998,001, according to the law shown above, by adding nines on one half and noughts on the other, and its complementary will be 1 preceded by five noughts, or 000001. Thus we get the squares of 999 and 1. These are the four solutions.
The general solution is interesting. Let's call the number of digits in each half of the torn label n. Then, if we add 1 to each of the exponents of the prime factors (other than 3) of 10n - 1 (with 1 considered as a factor with the constant exponent of 1), their product will give us the number of solutions. So, for a label with six digits, n = 3. The factors of 10n - 1 are 11 × 371 (not counting the 33), and the product of 2 × 2 = 4, which is the number of solutions. This always includes special cases like 98 - 01, 00 - 01, 998 - 01, 000 - 001, etc. The solutions can be found this way: Factor 103 - 1 in every possible way, always keeping the powers of 3 together, like 37 × 27 and 999 × 1. Then solve the equation 37x = 27y + 1. Here x = 19 and y = 26. Therefore, 19 × 37 = 703, the square of which gives us one label, 494,209. A complementary solution (from 27x = 37y + 1) can be found at once by 10n - 703 = 297, the square of which gives 088,209 for the second label. (These insignificant zeros to the left must be included, even though they lead to odd cases like 00238 - 04641 = 48792, where 0238 - 4641 wouldn't work.) For the special case of 999 × 1, we can immediately write 998,001, according to the rule mentioned above, by adding nines to one half and zeros to the other, and its complementary will be 1 preceded by five zeros, or 000001. Thus, we get the squares of 999 and 1. These are the four solutions.
The three smallest numbers, in addition to 48, are 1,680, 57,120, and 1,940,448. It will be found that 1,681 and 841, 57,121 and 28,561, 1,940,449 and 970,225, are respectively the squares of 41 and 29, 239 and 169, 1,393 and 985.
The three smallest numbers, along with 48, are 1,680, 57,120, and 1,940,448. You’ll find that 1,681 and 841, 57,121 and 28,561, 1,940,449 and 970,225, are the squares of 41 and 29, 239 and 169, 1,393 and 985, respectively.
The answer is that 25 × 92 is the same as 2592, and this is the only possible solution to the puzzle.
The answer is that 25 × 92 equals 2592, and this is the only solution to the puzzle.
As we are not told in what year Mr. Jasper Bullyon made the generous distribution of his accumulated wealth, but are required to find the lowest possible amount of money, it is clear that we must look for a year of the most favourable form.
As we don't know what year Mr. Jasper Bullyon generously shared his accumulated wealth, but we need to determine the lowest possible amount of money, it's clear that we should look for a year that is the most advantageous for this purpose.
There are four cases to be considered—an ordinary year with fifty-two Sundays and with fifty-three Sundays, and a leap-year with fifty-two and fifty-three Sundays respectively. Here are the lowest possible amounts in each case:—
There are four scenarios to look at—an ordinary year with fifty-two Sundays and one with fifty-three Sundays, and a leap year with fifty-two Sundays and one with fifty-three Sundays as well. Here are the lowest possible amounts in each case:—
313 | weekdays, | 52 Sundays | £112,055 |
312 | weekdays, | 53 Sundays | 19,345 |
314 | weekdays, | 52 Sundays | No solution possible. |
313 | weekdays, | 53 Sundays | £69,174 |
The lowest possible amount, and therefore the correct answer, is £19,345, distributed in an ordinary year that began on a Sunday. The last year of this kind was 1911. He would have paid £53 on every day of the year, or £62 on every weekday, with £1 left over, as required, in the latter event.
The minimum amount, and thus the correct answer, is £19,345, spread out over a typical year that started on a Sunday. The last year like this was 1911. He would have paid £53 every day of the year, or £62 on each weekday, leaving £1 remaining, as needed, in the latter case.
Though this puzzle presents no great difficulty to any one possessing a knowledge of algebra, it has perhaps rather interesting features.
Though this puzzle isn't very difficult for anyone who knows algebra, it does have some interesting aspects.
Seeing, as one does in the illustration, just one corner of the proposed square, one is scarcely prepared for the fact that the field, in order to comply with the conditions, must contain exactly 501,760 acres, the fence requiring the same number of rails. Yet this is the correct answer, and the only answer, and if that gentleman in Iowa carries out his intention, his field will be twenty-eight miles long on each side, and a little larger than the county of Westmorland. I am not aware that any limit has ever been fixed to the size of a "field," though they do not run so large as this in Great Britain. Still, out in Iowa, where my correspondent resides, they do these things on a very big scale. I have, however, reason to believe that when he finds the sort of task he has set himself, he will decide to abandon it; for if that cow decides to roam to fresh woods and pastures new, the milkmaid may have to start out a week in advance in order to obtain the morning's milk.
Seeing just one corner of the proposed square, it’s hard to believe that the field needs to be exactly 501,760 acres to meet the requirements, which will need the same number of rails for the fence. But that’s the right answer, and the only one. If that guy in Iowa goes through with his plan, his field will measure twenty-eight miles on each side and will be slightly larger than Westmorland County. I’m not aware of any limits on how big a "field" can be, though fields in Great Britain don’t usually get this large. Still, out in Iowa, where my correspondent lives, they do things on a much bigger scale. However, I suspect that when he realizes the kind of challenge he’s set for himself, he’ll choose to back out; if that cow decides to wander off to new pastures, the milkmaid might have to leave a week early just to get the morning's milk.
Here is a little rule that will always apply where the length of the rail is half a pole. Multiply the number of rails in a hurdle by four, and the result is the exact number of miles in the side of a square field containing the same number of acres as there are rails in the complete fence. Thus, with a one-rail fence the field is four miles square; a two-rail fence gives eight miles square; a three-rail fence, twelve miles square; and so on, until we find that a seven-rail fence multiplied by four gives a field of twenty-eight miles square. In the case of our present problem, if the field be made smaller, then the number of rails will exceed the number of acres; while if the field be made larger, the number of rails will be less than the acres of the field.
Here’s a simple rule that always works where the length of the rail is half a pole. Multiply the number of rails in a fence by four, and you get the exact number of miles on one side of a square field that has the same number of acres as there are rails in the complete fence. So, with a one-rail fence, the field is four miles square; a two-rail fence gives you eight miles square; a three-rail fence gives you twelve miles square; and so on, up to a seven-rail fence, which gives you a field that is twenty-eight miles square. In this situation, if the field is made smaller, the number of rails will be more than the number of acres; if the field is made larger, the number of rails will be less than the acres of the field.
Though this problem might strike the novice as being rather difficult, it is, as a matter of fact, quite easy, and is made still easier by inserting four out of the ten numbers.
Though this problem might seem pretty tough for beginners, it's actually quite simple, and it gets even easier by putting in four of the ten numbers.
Pg 163First, it will be found that squares that are diametrically opposite have a common difference. For example, the difference between the square of 14 and the square of 2, in the diagram, is 192; and the difference between the square of 16 and the square of 8 is also 192. This must be so in every case. Then it should be remembered that the difference between squares of two consecutive numbers is always twice the smaller number plus 1, and that the difference between the squares of any two numbers can always be expressed as the difference of the numbers multiplied by their sum. Thus the square of 5 (25) less the square of 4 (16) equals (2 × 4) + 1, or 9; also, the square of 7 (49) less the square of 3 (9) equals (7 + 3) × (7 - 3), or 40.
Pg 163First, you'll find that squares that are directly opposite each other have a consistent difference. For instance, the difference between the square of 14 and the square of 2, as shown in the diagram, is 192; similarly, the difference between the square of 16 and the square of 8 is also 192. This pattern holds true in every case. Additionally, keep in mind that the difference between the squares of two consecutive numbers is always twice the smaller number plus 1, and the difference between the squares of any two numbers can always be represented as the difference of the numbers multiplied by their sum. For example, the square of 5 (25) minus the square of 4 (16) equals (2 × 4) + 1, or 9; likewise, the square of 7 (49) minus the square of 3 (9) equals (7 + 3) × (7 - 3), or 40.
Now, the number 192, referred to above, may be divided into five different pairs of even factors: 2 × 96, 4 × 48, 6 × 32, 8 × 24, and 12 × 16, and these divided by 2 give us, 1 × 48, 2 × 24, 3 × 16, 4 × 12, and 6 × 8. The difference and sum respectively of each of these pairs in turn produce 47, 49; 22, 26; 13, 19; 8, 16; and 2, 14. These are the required numbers, four of which are already placed. The six numbers that have to be added may be placed in just six different ways, one of which is as follows, reading round the circle clockwise: 16, 2, 49, 22, 19, 8, 14, 47, 26, 13.
Now, the number 192, mentioned earlier, can be divided into five different pairs of even factors: 2 × 96, 4 × 48, 6 × 32, 8 × 24, and 12 × 16. When these are divided by 2, we get 1 × 48, 2 × 24, 3 × 16, 4 × 12, and 6 × 8. The differences and sums of each of these pairs produce 47, 49; 22, 26; 13, 19; 8, 16; and 2, 14. These are the needed numbers, four of which are already in place. The six numbers that need to be added can be arranged in just six different ways, one of which is as follows, reading clockwise around the circle: 16, 2, 49, 22, 19, 8, 14, 47, 26, 13.
I will just draw the reader's attention to one other little point. In all circles of this kind, the difference between diametrically opposite numbers increases by a certain ratio, the first numbers (with the exception of a circle of 6) being 4 and 6, and the others formed by doubling the next preceding but one. Thus, in the above case, the first difference is 2, and then the numbers increase by 4, 6, 8, and 12. Of course, an infinite number of solutions may be found if we admit fractions. The number of squares in a circle of this kind must, however, be of the form 4n + 6; that is, it must be a number composed of 6 plus a multiple of 4.
I'll just highlight one more small point for the reader. In all circles like this, the difference between two opposite numbers increases by a specific ratio. The initial numbers (except for a circle of 6) are 4 and 6, with subsequent numbers created by doubling the number before the last one. So, in this case, the first difference is 2, and then the numbers increase by 4, 6, 8, and 12. Naturally, an infinite number of solutions can be found if we include fractions. However, the number of squares in such a circle must be in the form 4n + 6; in other words, it has to be a number made up of 6 plus a multiple of 4.
The professor must have started the game with thirteen shillings, Mr. Potts with four shillings, and Mrs. Potts with seven shillings.
The professor must have started the game with thirteen shillings, Mr. Potts with four shillings, and Mrs. Potts with seven shillings.
The farmer had one sheep only! If he divided this sheep (which is best done by weight) into two parts, making one part two-thirds and the other part one-third, then the difference between these two numbers is the same as the difference between their squares—that is, one-third. Any two fractions will do if the denominator equals the sum of the two numerators.
The farmer had just one sheep! If he split this sheep (which is best done by weight) into two parts, making one part two-thirds and the other part one-third, then the difference between these two numbers is the same as the difference between their squares—that is, one-third. Any two fractions will work as long as the denominator equals the sum of the two numerators.
Crooks must have lost, and the longer he went on the more he would lose. In two tosses he would be left with three-quarters of his money, in four tosses with nine-sixteenths of his money, in six tosses with twenty-seven sixty-fourths of his money, and so on. The order of the wins and losses makes no difference, so long as their number is in the end equal.
Crooks must have lost, and the longer he continued, the more he would lose. In two tosses, he would be left with three-quarters of his money, in four tosses with nine-sixteenths of his money, in six tosses with twenty-seven sixty-fourths of his money, and so on. The order of the wins and losses doesn’t matter, as long as the total number is equal in the end.
The boy's weight must have been about 39.79 lbs. A brick weighed 3 lbs. Therefore 16 bricks weighed 48 lbs. and 11 bricks 33 lbs. Multiply 48 by 33 and take the square root.
The boy's weight must have been about 39.79 lbs. A brick weighed 3 lbs. So, 16 bricks weighed 48 lbs and 11 bricks weighed 33 lbs. Multiply 48 by 33 and take the square root.
It was clearly the intention of the deceased to give the son twice as much as the mother, or the daughter half as much as the mother. Therefore the most equitable division would be that the mother should take two-sevenths, the son four-sevenths, and the daughter one-seventh.
It was clearly the deceased's intention to give the son twice as much as the mother, or the daughter half as much as the mother. Therefore, the fairest division would be for the mother to take two-sevenths, the son four-sevenths, and the daughter one-seventh.
There is, of course, no difference in area between a mile square and a square mile. But there may be considerable difference in shape. A mile square can be no other shape than square; the expression describes a surface of a certain specific size and shape. A square mile may be of any shape; the expression names a unit of area, but does not prescribe any particular shape.
There’s no difference in area between a mile square and a square mile. However, there can be a significant difference in shape. A mile square can only be square; the term describes a surface with a specific size and shape. A square mile can have any shape; the term indicates a unit of area but doesn’t define a specific shape.
Bill Harris must have spent thirteen shillings and sixpence, which would be three shillings more than the average for the seven men—half a guinea.
Bill Harris must have spent thirteen shillings and sixpence, which would be three shillings more than the average for the seven men—half a guinea.
The number required is 3,529,411,764,705,882, which may be multiplied by 3 and divided by 2, by the simple expedient of removing the 3 from one end of the row to the other. If you want a longer number, you can increase this one to any extent by repeating the sixteen figures in the same order.
The number needed is 3,529,411,764,705,882, which can be multiplied by 3 and divided by 2 simply by moving the 3 from one end of the row to the other. If you want a larger number, you can extend this one indefinitely by repeating the sixteen digits in the same order.
Subtract every number in turn from every other number, and we get 358 (twice), 716, 1,611, 1,253, and 895. Now, we see at a glance that, as 358 equals 2 × 179, the only number that can divide in every case without a remainder will be 179. On trial we find that this is such a divisor. Therefore, 179 is the divisor we want, which always leaves a remainder 164 in the case of the original numbers given.
Subtract every number from each other one by one, and we end up with 358 (twice), 716, 1,611, 1,253, and 895. Now, it’s clear that since 358 equals 2 × 179, the only number that can divide into every result without leaving a remainder is 179. Testing it out confirms that this is indeed a valid divisor. So, 179 is the divisor we're looking for, which consistently leaves a remainder of 164 with the original numbers provided.
The sides of the three boards measure 31 in., 41 in., and 49 in. The common difference of area is exactly five square feet. Three numbers whose squares are in A.P., with a common difference of 7, are 113/120, 337/120, 463/120; and with Pg 164a common difference of 13 are 80929/19380, 106921/19380, and 127729/19380. In the case of whole square numbers the common difference will always be divisible by 24, so it is obvious that our squares must be fractional. Readers should now try to solve the case where the common difference is 23. It is rather a hard nut.
The sides of the three boards measure 31 in., 41 in., and 49 in. The difference in area is exactly five square feet. Three numbers whose squares are in arithmetic progression, with a common difference of 7, are 113/120, 337/120, 463/120; and with a common difference of 13 are 80929/19380, 106921/19380, and 127729/19380. For whole square numbers, the common difference will always be divisible by 24, so it's clear that our squares must be fractional. Readers should now try to tackle the case where the common difference is 23. It's quite a tough problem.
Any number (not itself a square number) may be multiplied by a square that will give a product 1 less than another square. The given number must not itself be a square, because a square multiplied by a square produces a square, and no square plus 1 can be a square. My remarks throughout must be understood to apply to whole numbers, because fractional soldiers are not of much use in war.
Any number (that isn’t a square number) can be multiplied by a square to get a result that is 1 less than another square. The number in question must not be a square itself, since a square multiplied by a square results in a square, and no square plus 1 can be a square. My comments throughout should be understood to apply to whole numbers, because fractional soldiers aren’t very useful in war.
Now, of all the numbers from 2 to 99 inclusive, 61 happens to be the most awkward one to work, and the lowest possible answer to our puzzle is that Harold's army consisted of 3,119,882,982,860,264,400 men. That is, there would be 51,145,622,669,840,400 men (the square of 226,153,980) in each of the sixty-one squares. Add one man (Harold), and they could then form one large square with 1,766,319,049 men on every side. The general problem, of which this is a particular case, is known as the "Pellian Equation"—apparently because Pell neither first propounded the question nor first solved it! It was issued as a challenge by Fermat to the English mathematicians of his day. It is readily solved by the use of continued fractions.
Now, among all the numbers from 2 to 99 inclusive, 61 is the most awkward one to work with, and the lowest possible answer to our puzzle is that Harold's army had 3,119,882,982,860,264,400 men. This means there would be 51,145,622,669,840,400 men (the square of 226,153,980) in each of the sixty-one squares. Add one man (Harold), and they could form a large square with 1,766,319,049 men on each side. The general problem, of which this is a specific case, is known as the "Pellian Equation"—apparently because Pell neither first proposed the question nor first solved it! It was presented as a challenge by Fermat to the English mathematicians of his time. It can be easily solved using continued fractions.
Next to 61, the most difficult number under 100 is 97, where 97 × 6,377,3522 + 1 = a square.
Next to 61, the hardest number under 100 is 97, where 97 × 6,377,3522 + 1 = a perfect square.
The reason why I assumed that there must be something wrong with the figures in the chronicle is that we can confidently say that Harold's army did not contain over three trillion men! If this army (not to mention the Normans) had had the whole surface of the earth (sea included) on which to encamp, each man would have had slightly more than a quarter of a square inch of space in which to move about! Put another way: Allowing one square foot of standing-room per man, each small square would have required all the space allowed by a globe three times the diameter of the earth.
The reason I figured there was something off with the numbers in the chronicle is that we can be sure Harold's army didn't have more than three trillion men! If this army (not to mention the Normans) had the entire surface of the earth (including the sea) to camp on, each person would have only about a quarter of a square inch of space to move around! In other words, if we gave each person one square foot of standing room, we'd need an area equivalent to a globe three times the size of the earth.
A little thought will make it clear that the answer must be fractional, and that in one case the numerator will be greater and in the other case less than the denominator. As a matter of fact, the height of the larger cube must be 8/7 ft., and of the smaller 3/7 ft., if we are to have the answer in the smallest possible figures. Here the lineal measurement is 11/7 ft.—that is, 14/7 ft. What are the cubic contents of the two cubes? First 8/7 × 3/7 × 8/7 = 512/343, and secondly 3/7 × 3/7 × 3/7 = 27/343. Add these together and the result is 539/343, which reduces to 11/7 or 14/7 ft. We thus see that the answers in cubic feet and lineal feet are precisely the same.
A little thought will make it clear that the answer must be fractional, and that in one case the numerator will be greater and in the other case less than the denominator. In fact, the height of the larger cube must be 8/7 ft., and of the smaller 3/7 ft., if we want the answer in the smallest possible figures. Here, the linear measurement is 11/7 ft.—which is 14/7 ft. What are the cubic volumes of the two cubes? First 8/7 × 3/7 × 8/7 = 512/343, and secondly 3/7 × 3/7 × 3/7 = 27/343. Add these together and the result is 539/343, which simplifies to 11/7 or 14/7 ft. We thus see that the answers in cubic feet and linear feet are exactly the same.
The germ of the idea is to be found in the works of Diophantus of Alexandria, who wrote about the beginning of the fourth century. These fractional numbers appear in triads, and are obtained from three generators, a, b, c, where a is the largest and c the smallest.
The basic idea comes from the works of Diophantus of Alexandria, who wrote around the early fourth century. These fractional numbers appear in groups of three and are derived from three generators, a, b, and c, where a is the largest and c is the smallest.
Then ab+c2=denominator, and a2-c2, b2-c2, and a2-b2 will be the three numerators. Thus, using the generators 3, 2, 1, we get 8/7, 3/7, 5/7 and we can pair the first and second, as in the above solution, or the first and third for a second solution. The denominator must always be a prime number of the form 6n+1, or composed of such primes. Thus you can have 13, 19, etc., as denominators, but not 25, 55, 187, etc.
Then ab+c2=denominator, and a2-c2, b2-c2, and a2-b2 will be the three numerators. Thus, using the generators 3, 2, 1, we get 8/7, 3/7, 5/7, and we can pair the first and second, like in the previous solution, or the first and third for a second solution. The denominator must always be a prime number of the form 6n+1, or made up of such primes. So you can have 13, 19, etc., as denominators, but not 25, 55, 187, etc.
When the principle is understood there is no difficulty in writing down the dimensions of as many sets of cubes as the most exacting collector may require. If the reader would like one, for example, with plenty of nines, perhaps the following would satisfy him: 99999999/99990001 and 19999/99990001.
When the principle is clear, it's easy to list the dimensions of as many sets of cubes as the most demanding collector might want. If the reader is looking for one, for example, with lots of nines, maybe the following would work: 99999999/99990001 and 19999/99990001.
There must have been 386 doubloons in one box, 8,450 in another, and 16,514 in the third, because 386 is the smallest number that can occur. If I had asked for the smallest aggregate number of coins, the answer would have been 482, 3,362, and 6,242. It will be found in either case that if the contents of any two of the three boxes be combined, they form a square number of coins. It is a curious coincidence (nothing more, for it will not always happen) that in the first solution the digits of the three numbers add to 17 in every case, and in the second solution to 14. It should be noted that the middle one of the three numbers will always be half a square.
There must have been 386 doubloons in one box, 8,450 in another, and 16,514 in the third, since 386 is the smallest number possible. If I had asked for the smallest total number of coins, the answer would have been 482, 3,362, and 6,242. In either case, if you combine the contents of any two of the three boxes, they make a square number of coins. It’s an interesting coincidence (nothing more, since it won’t always happen) that in the first solution, the digits of the three numbers add up to 17 each time, and in the second solution, they add up to 14. It’s important to note that the middle number among the three will always be half of a square.
Here is the answer that fulfils the conditions:—
Here is the answer that meets the requirements:—
A = 4 | B = 3,364 | C = 6,724 |
D = 2,116 | E = 5,476 | F = 8,836 |
G = 9,409 | H = 12,769 | I = 16,129 |
Each of these is a square number, the roots, taken in alphabetical order, being 2, 58, 82, 46, 74, 94, 97, 113, and 127, while the required difference between A and B, B and C, D and E. etc., is in every case 3,360.
Each of these is a square number, with the roots, listed in alphabetical order, being 2, 58, 82, 46, 74, 94, 97, 113, and 127, while the required difference between A and B, B and C, D and E, etc., is consistently 3,360.
The sum of 200 doubloons might have been held by the five brigands in any one of 6,627 different ways. Alfonso may have held any number from 1 to 11. If he held 1 doubloon, there are 1,005 different ways of distributing the remainder; if he held 2, there are 985 ways; if 3, there are 977 ways; if 4, there are 903 ways; if 5 doubloons, 832 ways; if 6 doubloons, 704 ways; if 7 doubloons, 570 ways; if 8 doubloons, 388 ways; if 9 doubloons, 200 ways; if 10 doubloons, 60 ways; and if Alfonso held 11 doubloons, the remainder could be distriPg 165buted in 3 different ways. More than 11 doubloons he could not possibly have had. It will scarcely be expected that I shall give all these 6,627 ways at length. What I propose to do is to enable the reader, if he should feel so disposed, to write out all the answers where Alfonso has one and the same amount. Let us take the cases where Alfonso has 6 doubloons, and see how we may obtain all the 704 different ways indicated above. Here are two tables that will serve as keys to all these answers:—
The total of 200 doubloons could have been divided among the five brigands in any one of 6,627 different ways. Alfonso might have had between 1 and 11 doubloons. If he had 1 doubloon, there are 1,005 different ways to distribute the rest; if he had 2, there are 985 ways; if 3, there are 977 ways; if 4, there are 903 ways; if 5 doubloons, 832 ways; if 6 doubloons, 704 ways; if 7 doubloons, 570 ways; if 8 doubloons, 388 ways; if 9 doubloons, 200 ways; if 10 doubloons, 60 ways; and if Alfonso had 11 doubloons, the remainder could be distributed in 3 different ways. He couldn't possibly have more than 11 doubloons. It's not realistic to expect me to list all 6,627 combinations in detail. What I intend to do is allow the reader, if they wish, to figure out all the combinations for when Alfonso has the same amount. Let’s look at the cases where Alfonso has 6 doubloons and see how we can find all 704 different distributions mentioned earlier. Here are two tables that will help unlock all these combinations:—
Table I. | ||
A | = | 6. |
B | = | n. |
C | = | (63 - 5n) + m. |
D | = | (128 + 4n) - 4m. |
E | = | 3 + 3m. |
Table II. | ||
A | = | 6. |
B | = | n. |
C | = | 1 + m. |
D | = | (376 - 16n) - 4m. |
E | = | (15n - 183) + 3m. |
In the first table we may substitute for n any whole number from 1 to 12 inclusive, and m may be nought or any whole number from 1 to (31 + n) inclusive. In the second table n may have the value of any whole number from 13 to 23 inclusive, and m may be nought or any whole number from 1 to (93 - 4n) inclusive. The first table thus gives (32 + n) answers for every value of n; and the second table gives (94 - 4n) answers for every value of n. The former, therefore, produces 462 and the latter 242 answers, which together make 704, as already stated.
In the first table, we can substitute any whole number from 1 to 12 for n, and m can be zero or any whole number from 1 to (31 + n). In the second table, n can be any whole number from 13 to 23, and m can be zero or any whole number from 1 to (93 - 4n). The first table provides (32 + n) answers for each value of n, while the second table gives (94 - 4n) answers for each value of n. Therefore, the first table produces 462 answers, and the second table produces 242 answers, which together total 704, as already mentioned.
Let us take Table I., and say n = 5 and m = 2; also in Table II. take n = 13 and m = 0. Then we at once get these two answers:—
Let’s take Table I and set n = 5 and m = 2. In Table II, let’s set n = 13 and m = 0. Then we immediately get these two answers:—
Table I. | ||
A | = | 6 |
B | = | 5 |
C | = | 40 |
D | = | 140 |
E | = | 9 |
200 doubloons |
Table II. | ||
A | = | 6 |
B | = | 13 |
C | = | 1 |
D | = | 168 |
E | = | 12 |
200 doubloons. |
These will be found to work correctly. All the rest of the 704 answers, where Alfonso always holds six doubloons, may be obtained in this way from the two tables by substituting the different numbers for the letters m and n.
These will be found to work correctly. All the other 704 answers, where Alfonso always has six doubloons, can be obtained this way from the two tables by replacing the different numbers for the letters m and n.
Put in another way, for every holding of Alfonso the number of answers is the sum of two arithmetical progressions, the common difference in one case being 1 and in the other -4. Thus in the case where Alfonso holds 6 doubloons one progression is 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + ... + 43 + 44, and the other 42 + 38 + 34 + 30 + ... + 6 + 2. The sum of the first series is 462, and of the second 242—results which again agree with the figures already given. The problem may be said to consist in finding the first and last terms of these progressions. I should remark that where Alfonso holds 9, 10, or 11 there is only one progression, of the second form.
In other words, for every amount of money Alfonso has, the number of answers is the total of two arithmetic sequences, with one having a common difference of 1 and the other having -4. So, when Alfonso has 6 doubloons, one sequence is 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + ... + 43 + 44, and the other is 42 + 38 + 34 + 30 + ... + 6 + 2. The total of the first series is 462, and the second is 242—results that match the figures provided earlier. The challenge is to identify the first and last terms of these sequences. I should mention that when Alfonso has 9, 10, or 11, there is only one sequence, which is of the second type.
In order that a number of sixpences may not be divisible into a number of equal piles, it is necessary that the number should be a prime. If the banker can bring about a prime number, he will win; and I will show how he can always do this, whatever the customer may put in the box, and that therefore the banker will win to a certainty. The banker must first deposit forty sixpences, and then, no matter how many the customer may add, he will desire the latter to transfer from the counter the square of the number next below what the customer put in. Thus, banker puts 40, customer, we will say, adds 6, then transfers from the counter 25 (the square of 5), which leaves 71 in all, a prime number. Try again. Banker puts 40, customer adds 12, then transfers 121 (the square of 11), as desired, which leaves 173, a prime number. The key to the puzzle is the curious fact that any number up to 39, if added to its square and the sum increased by 41, makes a prime number. This was first discovered by Euler, the great mathematician. It has been suggested that the banker might desire the customer to transfer sufficient to raise the contents of the box to a given number; but this would not only make the thing an absurdity, but breaks the rule that neither knows what the other puts in.
To ensure that a number of sixpences can’t be evenly divided into equal piles, that number has to be a prime. If the banker can create a prime number, he will win, and I’ll explain how he can always do this, regardless of how many the customer puts in the box, meaning the banker will definitely win. The banker starts by putting in forty sixpences, and no matter how many the customer adds, he will ask the customer to transfer from the counter the square of the number just below what the customer placed in. For example, the banker puts in 40, and if the customer adds 6, he then transfers 25 (the square of 5), leaving a total of 71, which is a prime number. Let’s try again. The banker puts in 40, the customer adds 12, then he transfers 121 (the square of 11), as intended, which leaves 173, a prime number. The key to the trick is the interesting fact that any number up to 39, when added to its square and then increased by 41, yields a prime number. This was first discovered by Euler, the great mathematician. It has been suggested that the banker might want the customer to transfer enough to bring the box’s total to a specific number, but this would not only make it ridiculous but also violate the rule that neither knows what the other is adding.
The puzzle amounts to this. Find the smallest square number that may be expressed as the sum of more than three consecutive cubes, the cube 1 being barred. As more than three heaps were to be supplied, this condition shuts out the otherwise smallest answer, 233 + 243 + 253 = 2042. But it admits the answer, 253 + 263 + 273 + 283 + 293 = 3152. The correct answer, however, requires more heaps, but a smaller aggregate number of blocks. Here it is: 143 + 153 + ... up to 253 inclusive, or twelve heaps in all, which, added together, make 97,344 blocks of stone that may be laid out to form a square 312 × 312. I will just remark that one key to the solution lies in what are called triangular numbers. (See pp. 13, 25, and 166.)
The puzzle is as follows: find the smallest square number that can be expressed as the sum of more than three consecutive cubes, excluding the cube of 1. Since we need more than three groups, this condition eliminates the otherwise smallest answer, which is 233 + 243 + 253 = 2042. However, it allows for the solution of 253 + 263 + 273 + 283 + 293 = 3152. The correct answer, though, requires even more groups but a smaller total number of blocks. Here it is: 143 + 153 + ... up to 253 inclusive, which totals twelve groups. When you add them up, they equal 97,344 blocks of stone that can be arranged to form a square measuring 312 × 312. I just want to point out that one key to solving this lies in what are known as triangular numbers. (See pp. 13, 25, and 166.)
The smallest primes of the form 4n + 1 are 5, 13, 17, 29, and 37, and the smallest of the form 4n - 1 are 3, 7, 11, 19, and 23. Now, primes of the first form can always be expressed as the sum of two squares, and in only one way. Thus, 5 = 4 + 1; 13 = 9 + 4; 17 = 16 + 1; 29 = 25 + 4; 37 = 36 + 1. But primes of the second form can never be expressed as the sum of two squares in any way whatever.
The smallest prime numbers that fit the pattern 4n + 1 are 5, 13, 17, 29, and 37, while the smallest that fit 4n - 1 are 3, 7, 11, 19, and 23. Prime numbers of the first type can always be represented as the sum of two squares, and there's only one way to do this. For example, 5 = 4 + 1; 13 = 9 + 4; 17 = 16 + 1; 29 = 25 + 4; and 37 = 36 + 1. However, prime numbers of the second type can never be expressed as the sum of two squares in any form.
In order that a number may be expressed as the sum of two squares in several different ways, it is necessary that it shall be a composite number containing a certain number of primes of our first form. Thus, 5 or 13 alone can only be so expressed in one way; but 65, (5 × 13), can be expressed in two ways, 1,105, (5 × 13 × 17), in four ways, 32,045, (5 × 13 × 17 × 29), in eight ways. We thus get double as many ways for every new factor of this form that we introduce. Note, however, that I say new Pg 166factor, for the repetition of factors is subject to another law. We cannot express 25, (5 × 5), in two ways, but only in one; yet 125, (5 × 5 × 5), can be given in two ways, and so can 625, (5 × 5 × 5 × 5); while if we take in yet another 5 we can express the number as the sum of two squares in three different ways.
To express a number as the sum of two squares in multiple ways, it needs to be a composite number that includes a certain amount of primes of the first type. For instance, 5 or 13 can only be expressed in one way; however, 65 (5 × 13) can be expressed in two ways, 1,105 (5 × 13 × 17) in four ways, and 32,045 (5 × 13 × 17 × 29) in eight ways. This shows that we get double the number of ways for each new prime factor of this type that we add. But note that I say new Pg 166 factor, because the repetition of factors follows a different rule. We cannot express 25 (5 × 5) in two ways, only in one; yet 125 (5 × 5 × 5) can be expressed in two ways, and so can 625 (5 × 5 × 5 × 5). If we include yet another 5, we can express the number as the sum of two squares in three different ways.
If a prime of the second form gets into your composite number, then that number cannot be the sum of two squares. Thus 15, (3 × 5), will not work, nor will 135, (3 × 3 × 3 × 5); but if we take in an even number of 3's it will work, because these 3's will themselves form a square number, but you will only get one solution. Thus, 45, (3 × 3 × 5, or 9 × 5) = 36 + 9. Similarly, the factor 2 may always occur, or any power of 2, such as 4, 8, 16, 32; but its introduction or omission will never affect the number of your solutions, except in such a case as 50, where it doubles a square and therefore gives you the two answers, 49 + 1 and 25 + 25.
If a prime of the second form appears in your composite number, then that number can't be expressed as the sum of two squares. So, 15 (3 × 5) won't work, nor will 135 (3 × 3 × 3 × 5); however, if we include an even number of 3's, it will work because those 3's will create a square number, but you'll only find one solution. For example, 45 (3 × 3 × 5, or 9 × 5) = 36 + 9. Similarly, the factor 2 can always appear, or any power of 2, like 4, 8, 16, 32; but whether you include it or not won't change the number of solutions you get, except in cases like 50, where it creates a double square and thus gives you two answers: 49 + 1 and 25 + 25.
Now, directly a number is decomposed into its prime factors, it is possible to tell at a glance whether or not it can be split into two squares; and if it can be, the process of discovery in how many ways is so simple that it can be done in the head without any effort. The number I gave was 130. I at once saw that this was 2 × 5 × 13, and consequently that, as 65 can be expressed in two ways (64 + 1 and 49 + 16), 130 can also be expressed in two ways, the factor 2 not affecting the question.
Now, once a number is broken down into its prime factors, you can quickly determine whether it can be expressed as the sum of two squares. If it can, figuring out the different ways is simple enough to do in your head without much effort. The number I mentioned was 130. I immediately saw that this is 2 × 5 × 13, and since 65 can be represented in two ways (64 + 1 and 49 + 16), 130 can also be expressed in two ways, with the factor 2 not influencing the outcome.
The smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two squares in twelve different ways is 160,225, and this is therefore the smallest army that would answer the Sultan's purpose. The number is composed of the factors 5 × 5 × 13 × 17 × 29, each of which is of the required form. If they were all different factors, there would be sixteen ways; but as one of the factors is repeated, there are just twelve ways. Here are the sides of the twelve pairs of squares: (400 and 15), (399 and 32), (393 and 76), (392 and 81), (384 and 113), (375 and 140), (360 and 175), (356 and 183), (337 and 216), (329 and 228), (311 and 252), (265 and 300). Square the two numbers in each pair, add them together, and their sum will in every case be 160,225.
The smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two squares in twelve different ways is 160,225, making it the smallest army that would meet the Sultan's requirement. The number is made up of the factors 5 × 5 × 13 × 17 × 29, each fitting the required form. If all the factors were different, there would be sixteen ways; however, since one factor is repeated, there are only twelve ways. Here are the sides of the twelve pairs of squares: (400 and 15), (399 and 32), (393 and 76), (392 and 81), (384 and 113), (375 and 140), (360 and 175), (356 and 183), (337 and 216), (329 and 228), (311 and 252), (265 and 300). Square the two numbers in each pair, add them together, and their sum will always be 160,225.
Mrs. Sandy McAllister will have to save a tremendous sum out of her housekeeping allowance if she is to win that sixth present that her canny husband promised her. And the allowance must be a very liberal one if it is to admit of such savings. The problem required that we should find five numbers higher than 36 the units of which may be displayed so as to form a square, a triangle, two triangles, and three triangles, using the complete number in every one of the four cases.
Mrs. Sandy McAllister will need to save a significant amount from her household budget if she wants to earn that sixth gift her clever husband promised her. And the budget has to be quite generous for her to be able to save that much. The challenge was to find five numbers greater than 36 that can be arranged to form a square, a triangle, two triangles, and three triangles, using the full number in each of the four cases.
Every triangular number is such that if we multiply it by 8 and add 1 the result is an odd square number. For example, multiply 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 respectively by 8 and add 1, and we get 9, 25, 49, 81, 121, which are the squares of the odd numbers 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. Therefore in every case where 8x2 + 1 = a square number, x2 is also a triangular. This point is dealt with in our puzzle, "The Battle of Hastings." I will now merely show again how, when the first solution is found, the others may be discovered without any difficulty. First of all, here are the figures:—
Every triangular number has the property that when you multiply it by 8 and add 1, the result is an odd square number. For instance, if you take 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 and multiply each by 8, then add 1, you get 9, 25, 49, 81, and 121, which are squares of the odd numbers 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Therefore, in every instance where 8x2 + 1 = a square number, x2 is also triangular. This concept is addressed in our puzzle, "The Battle of Hastings." I will now simply demonstrate how, once the first solution is found, the others can be easily discovered. First, here are the figures:—
8 | × | 12 | + 1 = | 32 |
8 | × | 62 | + 1 = | 172 |
8 | × | 352 | + 1 = | 992 |
8 | × | 2042 | + 1 = | 5772 |
8 | × | 11892 | + 1 = | 33632 |
8 | × | 69302 | + 1 = | 196012 |
8 | × | 403912 | + 1 = | 1142432 |
The successive pairs of numbers are found in this way:—
The pairs of numbers are found like this:—
(1 × 3) + (3 × 1) | = | 6 | (8 × 1) + (3 × 3) | = | 17 | |
(1 × 17) + (3 × 6) | = | 35 | (8 × 6) + (3 × 17) | = | 99 | |
(1 × 99) + (3 × 35) | = | 204 | (8 × 35) + (3 × 99) | = | 577 |
and so on. Look for the numbers in the table above, and the method will explain itself.
and so on. Check the numbers in the table above, and the method will become clear.
Thus we find that the numbers 36, 1225, 41616, 1413721, 48024900, and 1631432881 will form squares with sides of 6, 35, 204, 1189, 6930, and 40391; and they will also form single triangles with sides of 8, 49, 288, 1681, 9800, and 57121. These numbers may be obtained from the last column in the first table above in this way: simply divide the numbers by 2 and reject the remainder. Thus the integral halves of 17, 99, and 577 are 8, 49, and 288.
Thus we find that the numbers 36, 1225, 41616, 1413721, 48024900, and 1631432881 will form squares with sides of 6, 35, 204, 1189, 6930, and 40391; and they will also form single triangles with sides of 8, 49, 288, 1681, 9800, and 57121. These numbers can be obtained from the last column in the first table above by simply dividing the numbers by 2 and ignoring the remainder. So, the whole numbers of 17, 99, and 577 are 8, 49, and 288.
All the numbers we have found will form either two or three triangles at will. The following little diagram will show you graphically at a glance that every square number must necessarily be the sum of two triangulars, and that the side of one triangle will be the same as the side of the corresponding square, while the other will be just 1 less.
All the numbers we've found will create either two or three triangles as needed. The following small diagram will visually demonstrate that every square number has to be the sum of two triangular numbers, and that one triangle's side will match the side of the corresponding square, while the other will be just 1 less.

Thus a square may always be divided easily into two triangles, and the sum of two consecutive triangulars will always make a square. In numbers it is equally clear, for if we examine the first triangulars—1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28—we find that by adding all the consecutive pairs in turn we get the series of square numbers—9, 16, 25, 36, 49, etc.
So, a square can always be easily divided into two triangles, and the total of two consecutive triangular numbers will always form a square. It's just as clear with numbers; if we look at the first triangular numbers—1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28—we see that by adding each consecutive pair, we get the series of square numbers—9, 16, 25, 36, 49, and so on.
The method of forming three triangles from our numbers is equally direct, and not at all a matter of trial. But I must content myself with giving actual figures, and just stating that every triangular higher than 6 will form three triangulars. I give the sides of the triangles, and readers will know from my remarks when statPg 167ing the puzzle how to find from these sides the number of counters or coins in each, and so check the results if they so wish.
The method for creating three triangles from our numbers is straightforward and doesn’t require guessing. However, I’ll stick to providing actual numbers and simply mention that every triangle higher than 6 will create three triangles. I’ll provide the sides of the triangles, and readers will understand from my comments on the puzzle how to determine the number of counters or coins in each, allowing them to verify the results if they choose to. Pg 167
Number | Side of Square. | Side of Triangle. | Sides of Two Triangles. | Sides of Three Triangles. |
36 | 6 | 8 | 6 + 5 | 5 + 5 + 3 |
1225 | 35 | 49 | 36 + 34 | 33 + 32 + 16 |
41616 | 204 | 288 | 204 + 203 | 192 + 192 + 95 |
1413721 | 1189 | 1681 | 1189 + 1188 | 1121 + 1120 + 560 |
48024900 | 6930 | 9800 | 6930 + 6929 | 6533 + 6533 + 3267 |
1631432881 | 40391 | 57121 | 40391 + 40390 | 38081 + 38080 + 19040 |
I should perhaps explain that the arrangements given in the last two columns are not the only ways of forming two and three triangles. There are others, but one set of figures will fully serve our purpose. We thus see that before Mrs. McAllister can claim her sixth £5 present she must save the respectable sum of £1,631,432,881.
I should probably clarify that the arrangements provided in the last two columns aren't the only ways to create two and three triangles. There are other options, but one set of figures will meet our needs. So, we can see that before Mrs. McAllister can claim her sixth £5 gift, she needs to save the impressive amount of £1,631,432,881.
We were required to find the smallest number of cannon balls that we could lay on the ground to form a perfect square, and could pile into a square pyramid. I will try to make the matter clear to the merest novice.
We had to find the smallest number of cannonballs that we could lay on the ground to form a perfect square and could stack into a square pyramid. I will do my best to explain this clearly for even the absolute beginner.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 21 | 28 |
1 | 4 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 56 | 84 |
1 | 5 | 14 | 30 | 55 | 91 | 140 |
Here in the first row we place in regular order the natural numbers. Each number in the second row represents the sum of the numbers in the row above, from the beginning to the number just over it. Thus 1, 2, 3, 4, added together, make 10. The third row is formed in exactly the same way as the second. In the fourth row every number is formed by adding together the number just above it and the preceding number. Thus 4 and 10 make 14, 20 and 35 make 55. Now, all the numbers in the second row are triangular numbers, which means that these numbers of cannon balls may be laid out on the ground so as to form equilateral triangles. The numbers in the third row will all form our triangular pyramids, while the numbers in the fourth row will all form square pyramids.
Here in the first row, we list the natural numbers in order. Each number in the second row represents the sum of the numbers in the row above it, from the beginning up to the number directly above it. So, 1, 2, 3, and 4 added together equal 10. The third row is created in the same way as the second. In the fourth row, each number is formed by adding the number right above it to the one before it. So, 4 plus 10 equals 14, and 20 plus 35 equals 55. Now, all the numbers in the second row are triangular numbers, meaning that these cannonball numbers can be arranged to form equilateral triangles. The numbers in the third row will form triangular pyramids, while the numbers in the fourth row will form square pyramids.
Thus the very process of forming the above numbers shows us that every square pyramid is the sum of two triangular pyramids, one of which has the same number of balls in the side at the base, and the other one ball fewer. If we continue the above table to twenty-four places, we shall reach the number 4,900 in the fourth row. As this number is the square of 70, we can lay out the balls in a square, and can form a square pyramid with them. This manner of writing out the series until we come to a square number does not appeal to the mathematical mind, but it serves to show how the answer to the particular puzzle may be easily arrived at by anybody. As a matter of fact, I confess my failure to discover any number other than 4,900 that fulfils the conditions, nor have I found any rigid proof that this is the only answer. The problem is a difficult one, and the second answer, if it exists (which I do not believe), certainly runs into big figures.
Thus, the process of forming the numbers mentioned shows us that every square pyramid is the sum of two triangular pyramids, one of which has the same number of balls at the base and the other has one ball fewer. If we continue the table above to twenty-four places, we'll arrive at the number 4,900 in the fourth row. Since this number is the square of 70, we can arrange the balls in a square and create a square pyramid with them. This way of writing out the series until we reach a square number doesn’t resonate with a mathematical mindset, but it demonstrates how anyone can easily arrive at the solution to this specific puzzle. In fact, I admit I haven't been able to find any number other than 4,900 that satisfies these conditions, nor have I found any strict proof that this is the only solution. The problem is a tough one, and if there is a second answer (which I doubt), it would certainly be a large number.
For the benefit of more advanced mathematicians I will add that the general expression for square pyramid numbers is (2n3 + 3n2 + n)/6. For this expression to be also a square number (the special case of 1 excepted) it is necessary that n = p2 - 1 = 6t2, where 2p2 - 1 = q2 (the "Pellian Equation"). In the case of our solution above, n = 24, p = 5, t = 2, q = 7.
For more advanced mathematicians, I'll add that the general formula for square pyramid numbers is (2n3 + 3n2 + n)/6. For this formula to also be a square number (except for the special case of 1), it’s necessary that n = p2 - 1 = 6t2, where 2p2 - 1 = q2 (the "Pellian Equation"). In the case of our solution above, n = 24, p = 5, t = 2, q = 7.
The money paid in every case was a square number of shillings, because they bought 1 at 1s., 2 at 2s., 3 at 3s., and so on. But every husband pays altogether 63s. more than his wife, so we have to find in how many ways 63 may be the difference between two square numbers. These are the three only possible ways: the square of 8 less the square of 1, the square of 12 less the square of 9, and the square of 32 less the square of 31. Here 1, 9, and 31 represent the number of pigs bought and the number of shillings per pig paid by each woman, and 8, 12, and 32 the same in the case of their respective husbands. From the further information given as to their purchases, we can now pair them off as follows: Cornelius and Gurtrün bought 8 and 1; Elas and Katrün bought 12 and 9; Hendrick and Anna bought 32 and 31. And these pairs represent correctly the three married couples.
The money paid in each case was a square number of shillings, because they bought 1 at 1s., 2 at 2s., 3 at 3s., and so on. But every husband pays 63s. more than his wife, so we need to find out in how many ways 63 can be the difference between two square numbers. There are only three possible ways: the square of 8 minus the square of 1, the square of 12 minus the square of 9, and the square of 32 minus the square of 31. Here, 1, 9, and 31 represent the number of pigs bought and the number of shillings per pig paid by each woman, while 8, 12, and 32 represent the same for their respective husbands. From the additional information about their purchases, we can now pair them as follows: Cornelius and Gurtrün bought 8 and 1; Elas and Katrün bought 12 and 9; Hendrick and Anna bought 32 and 31. These pairs correctly represent the three married couples.
The reader may here desire to know how we may determine the maximum number of ways in which a number may be expressed as the difference between two squares, and how we are to find the actual squares. Any integer except 1, 4, and twice any odd number, may be expressed as the difference of two integral squares in as many ways as it can be split up into pairs of factors, counting 1 as a factor. Suppose the number to be 5,940. The factors are Pg 16822.33.5.11. Here the exponents are 2, 3, 1, 1. Always deduct 1 from the exponents of 2 and add 1 to all the other exponents; then we get 1, 4, 2, 2, and half the product of these four numbers will be the required number of ways in which 5,940 may be the difference of two squares—that is, 8. To find these eight squares, as it is an even number, we first divide by 4 and get 1485, the eight pairs of factors of which are 1 × 1485, 3 × 495, 5 × 297, 9 × 165, 11 × 135, 15 × 99, 27 × 55, and 33 × 45. The sum and difference of any one of these pairs will give the required numbers. Thus, the square of 1,486 less the square of 1,484 is 5,940, the square of 498 less the square of 492 is the same, and so on. In the case of 63 above, the number is odd; so we factorize at once, 1 × 63, 3 × 21, 7 × 9. Then we find that half the sum and difference will give us the numbers 32 and 31, 12 and 9, and 8 and 1, as shown in the solution to the puzzle.
The reader might want to know how we can figure out the maximum number of ways to express a number as the difference between two squares and how to actually find those squares. Any integer except for 1, 4, and double any odd number can be expressed as the difference of two integer squares in as many ways as it can be broken down into pairs of factors, counting 1 as a factor. For example, let's take the number 5,940. Its factors are Pg 16822.33.5.11. The exponents here are 2, 3, 1, and 1. We always subtract 1 from the exponents of 2 and add 1 to all the other exponents, giving us 1, 4, 2, and 2. Half the product of these four numbers will provide the number of ways in which 5,940 can be the difference of two squares—that is, 8. To find these eight squares, since it’s an even number, we first divide by 4 to get 1485. The eight pairs of factors for 1485 are 1 × 1485, 3 × 495, 5 × 297, 9 × 165, 11 × 135, 15 × 99, 27 × 55, and 33 × 45. The sum and difference of any of these pairs will give us the required numbers. So, for instance, the square of 1,486 minus the square of 1,484 equals 5,940, as does the square of 498 minus the square of 492, and so on. In the case of 63 above, since the number is odd, we factor it directly: 1 × 63, 3 × 21, 7 × 9. Then we find that half the sum and difference results in the numbers 32 and 31, 12 and 9, and 8 and 1, as shown in the solution to the puzzle.
The reverse problem, to find the factors of a number when you have expressed it as the difference of two squares, is obvious. For example, the sum and difference of any pair of numbers in the last sentence will give us the factors of 63. Every prime number (except 1 and 2) may be expressed as the difference of two squares in one way, and in one way only. If a number can be expressed as the difference of two squares in more than one way, it is composite; and having so expressed it, we may at once obtain the factors, as we have seen. Fermat showed in a letter to Mersenne or Frénicle, in 1643, how we may discover whether a number may be expressed as the difference of two squares in more than one way, or proved to be a prime. But the method, when dealing with large numbers, is necessarily tedious, though in practice it may be considerably shortened. In many cases it is the shortest method known for factorizing large numbers, and I have always held the opinion that Fermat used it in performing a certain feat in factorizing that is historical and wrapped in mystery.
The reverse problem, finding the factors of a number when you've expressed it as the difference of two squares, is straightforward. For instance, the sum and difference of any two numbers from the previous sentence will give us the factors of 63. Every prime number (except 1 and 2) can be written as the difference of two squares in just one way. If a number can be expressed as the difference of two squares in multiple ways, it’s composite; and once we've done that, we can immediately get the factors, as we've seen. Fermat showed in a letter to Mersenne or Frénicle in 1643 how we can tell whether a number can be expressed as the difference of two squares in more than one way, or if it’s prime. However, the method can be tedious when working with large numbers, although it can be significantly shortened in practice. In many cases, it is the quickest known method for factoring large numbers, and I’ve always believed that Fermat used it to accomplish a certain famous and mysterious feat in factorization.
The girls' names were Ada Smith, Annie Brown, Emily Jones, Mary Robinson, and Bessie Evans.
The girls' names were Ada Smith, Annie Brown, Emily Jones, Mary Robinson, and Bessie Evans.
As every person's purchase was of the value of an exact number of shillings, and as the party possessed when they started out forty shilling coins altogether, there was no necessity for any lady to have any smaller change, or any evidence that they actually had such change. This being so, the only answer possible is that the women were named respectively Anne Jones, Mary Robinson, Jane Smith, and Kate Brown. It will now be found that there would be exactly eight shillings left, which may be divided equally among the eight persons in coin without any change being required.
Since each person's purchase was worth a precise number of shillings, and the group had a total of forty shilling coins when they set out, there was no need for any woman to carry smaller change or prove that they actually had such change. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the women were named Anne Jones, Mary Robinson, Jane Smith, and Kate Brown. It will now be noted that there would be exactly eight shillings remaining, which can be evenly distributed among the eight people in coins without needing any change.

Our illustration will show how to cut the stitches of the patchwork so as to get the square F entire, and four equal pieces, G, H, I, K, that will form a perfect Greek cross. The reader will know how to assemble these four pieces from Fig. 13 in the article.
Our illustration will demonstrate how to cut the stitches of the patchwork to obtain the complete square F and four equal pieces, G, H, I, K, that will create a perfect Greek cross. The reader can refer to Fig. 13 in the article to see how to assemble these four pieces.
It will be seen that one cross is cut out entire, as A in Fig. 1, while the four pieces marked Pg 169B, C, D and E form the second cross, as in Fig. 2, which will be of exactly the same size as the other. I will leave the reader the pleasant task of discovering for himself the best way of finding the direction of the cuts. Note that the Swastika again appears.
It can be observed that one cross is completely cut out, marked as A in Fig. 1, while the four pieces labeled Pg 169B, C, D, and E create the second cross, as shown in Fig. 2, which will be the same size as the first one. I’ll let the reader enjoy figuring out the best method for determining the direction of the cuts. Also, take note that the Swastika appears again.

The difficult question now presents itself: How are we to cut three Greek crosses from one in the fewest possible pieces? As a matter of fact, this problem may be solved in as few as thirteen pieces; but as I know many of my readers, advanced geometricians, will be glad to have something to work on of which they are not shown the solution, I leave the mystery for the present undisclosed.
The tricky question now arises: How can we cut three Greek crosses from one in the fewest pieces possible? In fact, this problem can be solved in as few as thirteen pieces; however, I know many of my readers, who are advanced geometricians, will be pleased to have a challenge without being shown the solution, so I’ll keep the mystery unsolved for now.
The line A B in the following diagram represents the side of a square having the same area as the cross. I have shown elsewhere, as stated, how to make a square and equilateral triangle of equal area. I need not go, therefore, into the preliminary question of finding the dimensions of the triangle that is to equal our cross. We will assume that we have already found this, and the question then becomes, How are we to cut up one of these into pieces that will form the other?
The line A B in the diagram below represents the side of a square that has the same area as the cross. I've explained elsewhere how to create a square and an equilateral triangle with equal areas. Therefore, I don't need to go into the details of determining the dimensions of the triangle that will equal our cross. We'll assume that we've already figured this out, and the question then becomes, how do we divide one of these into pieces that will create the other?
First draw the line A B where A and B are midway between the extremities of the two side arms. Next make the lines D C and E F equal in length to half the side of the triangle. Now from E and F describe with the same radius the intersecting arcs at G and draw F G. Finally make I K equal to H C and L B equal to A D. If we now draw I L, it should be parallel to F G, and all the six pieces are marked out. These fit together and form a perfect equilateral triangle, as shown in the second diagram. Or we might have first found the direction of the line M N in our triangle, then placed the point O over the point E in the cross and turned round the triangle over the cross until the line M N was parallel to A B. The piece 5 can then be marked off and the other pieces in succession.
First, draw the line A B where A and B are positioned midway between the ends of the two side arms. Next, create lines D C and E F, making them equal in length to half the side of the triangle. Now, from points E and F, use the same radius to draw intersecting arcs at G and then draw F G. Finally, make I K equal to H C and L B equal to A D. If we draw line I L now, it should be parallel to F G, and all six pieces are outlined. These fit together to form a perfect equilateral triangle, as shown in the second diagram. Alternatively, we could have first determined the direction of line M N in our triangle, then positioned point O over point E in the cross and rotated the triangle over the cross until line M N was parallel to A B. The piece 5 can then be marked off, followed by the other pieces in succession.

I have seen many attempts at a solution involving the assumption that the height of the triangle is exactly the same as the height of the cross. This is a fallacy: the cross will always be higher than the triangle of equal area.
I have seen many attempts at a solution that assume the height of the triangle is exactly the same as the height of the cross. This is a mistake: the cross will always be taller than the triangle with the same area.

First fold the cross along the dotted line A B in Fig. 1. You then have it in the form shown in Fig. 2. Next fold it along the dotted line C D (where D is, of course, the centre of the cross), and you get the form shown in Fig. 3. Now take your scissors and cut from G to F, and the four pieces, all of the same size and shape, will fit together and form a square, as shown in Fig. 4.
First, fold the cross along the dotted line A B in Fig. 1. You'll then have it in the shape shown in Fig. 2. Next, fold it along the dotted line C D (where D is the center of the cross), and you'll get the shape shown in Fig. 3. Now take your scissors and cut from G to F, and the four pieces, all the same size and shape, will fit together to form a square, as shown in Fig. 4.


The solution to this puzzle is shown in the illustration. Divide the figure up into twelve equal triangles, and it is easy to discover the directions of the cuts, as indicated by the dark lines.
The solution to this puzzle is shown in the illustration. Divide the figure into twelve equal triangles, and it’s easy to see the directions of the cuts, as indicated by the dark lines.

The diagram explains itself, one of the five pieces having been cut in two to form a square.
The diagram speaks for itself; one of the five pieces has been cut in half to create a square.

The secret of the bun puzzle lies in the fact that, with the relative dimensions of the circles as given, the three diameters will form a right-angled triangle, as shown by A, B, C. It follows that the two smaller buns are exactly equal to the large bun. Therefore, if we give David and Edgar the two halves marked D and E, they will have their fair shares—one quarter of the confectionery each. Then if we place the small bun, H, on the top of the remaining one and trace its circumference in the manner shown, Fred's piece, F, will exactly equal Harry's small bun, H, with the addition of the piece marked G—half the rim of the other. Thus each boy gets an exactly equal share, and there are only five pieces necessary.
The secret of the bun puzzle is that, with the given sizes of the circles, the three diameters will create a right-angled triangle, as shown by A, B, C. This means that the two smaller buns are exactly equal to the large bun. So, if we give David and Edgar the two halves marked D and E, they'll each get their fair share—one quarter of the treat. Then, if we place the small bun, H, on top of the remaining one and trace its edge as shown, Fred's piece, F, will be exactly equal to Harry's small bun, H, plus the piece marked G—half the edge of the other. This way, each boy gets an equal share, and only five pieces are needed.

Square A is left entire; the two pieces marked B fit together and make a second square; the two pieces C make a third square; and the four pieces marked D will form the fourth square.
Square A is left whole; the two pieces labeled B fit together to create a second square; the two pieces C make a third square; and the four pieces labeled D will form the fourth square.
The diagram on the next page shows how to cut into five pieces to form a square. The dotted lines are intended to show how to find the points C and F—the only difficulty. A B is half B D, and A E is parallel to B H. With the point of the compasses at B describe the arc H E, and A E will be the distance of C from B. Then F G equals B C less A B.
The diagram on the next page illustrates how to cut it into five pieces to create a square. The dotted lines indicate how to locate points C and F—the only tricky part. A B is half of B D, and A E is parallel to B H. With the compass point at B, draw the arc H E, and A E will be the distance from C to B. Then F G equals B C minus A B.
This puzzle—with the added condition that it shall be cut into four parts of the same size and shape—I have not been able to trace to an earlier date than 1835. Strictly speaking, Pg 171it is, in that form, impossible of solution; but I give the answer that is always presented, and that seems to satisfy most people.
This puzzle—now with the added requirement that it must be divided into four equal parts of the same size and shape—I haven't been able to find any earlier references to it than 1835. Technically, Pg 171 in that form, it's unsolvable; however, I'll provide the answer that's usually given, which seems to satisfy most people.

We are asked to assume that the two portions containing the same letter—AA, BB, CC, DD—are joined by "a mere hair," and are, therefore, only one piece. To the geometrician this is absurd, and the four shares are not equal in area unless they consist of two pieces each. If you make them equal in area, they will not be exactly alike in shape.
We are asked to accept that the two parts containing the same letters—AA, BB, CC, DD—are connected by "a mere hair," and are, therefore, just one piece. To a geometer, this is ridiculous, and the four sections are not equal in area unless they are made up of two pieces each. If you equalize their areas, they won't be identical in shape.


Nothing could be easier than the solution of this puzzle—when you know how to do it. And yet it is apt to perplex the novice a good deal if he wants to do it in the fewest possible pieces—three. All you have to do is to find the point A, midway between B and C, and then cut from A to D and from A to E. The three pieces then form a square in the manner shown. Of course, the proportions of the original figure must be correct; thus the triangle BEF is just a quarter of the square BCDF. Draw lines from B to D and from C to F and this will be clear.
Nothing could be simpler than solving this puzzle—once you know how to do it. Still, it can confuse a beginner quite a bit if they want to do it in the fewest pieces possible—three. All you need to do is find point A, which is halfway between B and C, and then cut from A to D and from A to E. The three pieces will then form a square as shown. Of course, the proportions of the original shape must be correct; the triangle BEF is exactly a quarter of the square BCDF. Draw lines from B to D and from C to F, and this will become clear.

The point was to find a general rule for forming a perfect square out of another square combined with a "right-angled isosceles triangle." The triangle to which geometricians give this high-sounding name is, of course, nothing more or less than half a square that has been divided from corner to corner.
The goal was to discover a general rule for creating a perfect square from another square along with a "right-angled isosceles triangle." The triangle that mathematicians refer to with this impressive name is really just half of a square that has been split from corner to corner.
Suppose our original square to be ACLF in the above diagram and our triangle to be the shaded portion CED. Now, we first find half the length of the long side of the triangle (CD) and measure off this length at AB. Then we place the triangle in its present position against the square and make two cuts—one from B to F, and the other from B to E. Strange as it may seem, that is all that is necessary! If we now remove the pieces G, H, and M to their new places, as shown in the diagram, we get the perfect square BEKF.
Suppose our original square is ACLF in the diagram above, and our triangle is the shaded area CED. First, we find half the length of the long side of the triangle (CD) and mark this length at AB. Then we position the triangle against the square and make two cuts—one from B to F, and the other from B to E. As strange as it might sound, that’s all we need to do! If we then move pieces G, H, and M to their new spots, as shown in the diagram, we create the perfect square BEKF.
Take any two square pieces of paper, of different sizes but perfect squares, and cut the smaller one in half from corner to corner. Now proceed in the manner shown, and you will find that the two pieces may be combined to form a larger square by making these two simple cuts, and that no piece will be required to be turned over.
Take two square pieces of paper that are different sizes but perfect squares. Cut the smaller one in half from corner to corner. Now follow the method shown, and you'll see that the two pieces can be put together to create a larger square with just these two simple cuts, and you won’t need to flip any piece over.
The remark that the triangle might be "a little larger or a good deal smaller in proportion" was intended to bar cases where area of triangle is greater than area of square. In such cases six pieces are necessary, and if triangle and square are of equal area there is an obvious solution in three pieces, by simply cutting the square in half diagonally.
The comment that the triangle could be "a bit larger or significantly smaller in proportion" was meant to exclude scenarios where the area of the triangle is greater than the area of the square. In those situations, six pieces are needed, and if the triangle and square have equal areas, there's a clear solution in three pieces by just cutting the square in half diagonally.

The illustration shows how to cut the four pieces and form with them a square. First find the side of the square (the mean proportional between the length and height of the rectangle), and the method is obvious. If our strip is exactly in the proportions 9x1, or 16x1, or 25x1, we can clearly cut it in 3, 4, or 5 rectangular pieces respectively to form a square. Excluding these special cases, the general law is that for a strip in length more than n² times the breadth, and not more than (n+1)² times the breadth, it may be cut in n+2 pieces to form a square, and there will be n-1 rectangular pieces like piece 4 in the diagram. Thus, for example, with a strip 24x1, the length is more than 16 and less than 25 times the breadth. Therefore it can be done in 6 pieces (n here being 4), 3 of which will be rectangular. In the case where n equals 1, the rectangle disappears and we get a solution in three pieces. Within these limits, of course, the sides need not be rational: the solution is purely geometrical.
The illustration shows how to cut four pieces and use them to create a square. First, determine the side of the square (the average proportion between the length and height of the rectangle), and the method is clear. If our strip is exactly in the proportions of 9:1, 16:1, or 25:1, we can easily cut it into 3, 4, or 5 rectangular pieces respectively to form a square. Aside from these special cases, the general rule is that for a strip whose length is more than n² times the width, and not more than (n+1)² times the width, it can be cut into n+2 pieces to form a square, and there will be n-1 rectangular pieces like piece 4 in the diagram. For example, with a strip measuring 24:1, the length is more than 16 times and less than 25 times the width. Therefore, it can be created in 6 pieces (with n being 4 here), 3 of which will be rectangular. In the case where n equals 1, the rectangle disappears and we get a solution in three pieces. Within these limits, of course, the sides don’t have to be rational: the solution is purely geometric.

As I gave full measurements of the mutilated rug, it was quite an easy matter to find the precise dimensions for the square. The two pieces cut off would, if placed together, make an oblong piece 12x6, giving an area of 72 (inches or yards, as we please), and as the original complete rug measured 36x27, it had an area of 972. If, therefore, we deduct the pieces that have been cut away, we find that our new rug will contain 972 less 72, or 900; and as 900 is the square of 30, we know that the new rug must measure 30x30 to be a perfect square. This is a great help towards the solution, because we may safely conclude that the two horizontal sides measuring 30 each may be left intact.
As I provided the full measurements of the damaged rug, it was pretty straightforward to determine the exact size of the square. The two sections that were cut off would, if put together, form a rectangle measuring 12x6, which gives an area of 72 (inches or yards, whichever we prefer). The original complete rug measured 36x27, which had a total area of 972. Therefore, if we subtract the pieces that have been removed, we find that our new rug will have an area of 972 minus 72, or 900; and since 900 is the square of 30, we know that the new rug must measure 30x30 to be a perfect square. This is really helpful for the solution, because we can confidently say that the two horizontal sides measuring 30 each can remain intact.
There is a very easy way of solving the puzzle in four pieces, and also a way in three pieces that can scarcely be called difficult, but the correct answer is in only two pieces.
There’s a really simple way to solve the puzzle using four pieces, and there's also a way with three pieces that’s hardly difficult, but the right answer uses only two pieces.
It will be seen that if, after the cuts are made, we insert the teeth of the piece B one tooth lower down, the two portions will fit together and form a square.
It will be clear that if, after the cuts are made, we insert the teeth of piece B one tooth lower, the two parts will fit together and create a square.
A regular pentagon may be cut into as few as six pieces that will fit together without any turning over and form a square, as I shall show below. Hitherto the best answer has been in seven pieces—the solution produced some years ago by a foreign mathematician, Paul Busschop. We first form a parallelogram, and from that the square. The process will be seen in the diagram on the next page.
A regular pentagon can be divided into just six pieces that can fit together without flipping them over to create a square, as I will demonstrate below. Previously, the best solution involved seven pieces, developed years ago by a mathematician from abroad, Paul Busschop. We start by creating a parallelogram, and from that, we form the square. You will see the process illustrated in the diagram on the next page.
The pentagon is ABCDE. By the cut AC and the cut FM (F being the middle point between A and C, and M being the same distance from A as F) we get two pieces that may be placed in position at GHEA and form the parallelogram GHDC. We then find the mean proportional between the length HD and the height of the parallelogram. This distance we mark off from C at K, then draw CK, Pg 173and from G drop the line GL, perpendicular to KC. The rest is easy and rather obvious. It will be seen that the six pieces will form either the pentagon or the square.
The pentagon is ABCDE. By cutting along AC and FM (with F being the midpoint between A and C, and M being the same distance from A as F), we create two pieces that can be positioned at GHEA to form the parallelogram GHDC. We then find the mean proportional between the length HD and the height of the parallelogram. We mark this distance from C to K, then draw CK, Pg 173 and from G, we drop the line GL, which is perpendicular to KC. The rest is straightforward and rather obvious. You will see that the six pieces will form either the pentagon or the square.
I have received what purported to be a solution in five pieces, but the method was based on the rather subtle fallacy that half the diagonal plus half the side of a pentagon equals the side of a square of the same area. I say subtle, because it is an extremely close approximation that will deceive the eye, and is quite difficult to prove inexact. I am not aware that attention has before been drawn to this curious approximation.
I got what claimed to be a solution in five parts, but the method was based on the tricky misconception that half the diagonal plus half the side of a pentagon equals the side of a square with the same area. I call it tricky because it's a very close approximation that can easily mislead the eye, and it's quite hard to prove that it's incorrect. I'm not aware that anyone has pointed out this interesting approximation before.

Another correspondent made the side of his square 1¼ of the side of the pentagon. As a matter of fact, the ratio is irrational. I calculate that if the side of the pentagon is 1—inch, foot, or anything else—the side of the square of equal area is 1.3117 nearly, or say roughly 13/10. So we can only hope to solve the puzzle by geometrical methods.
Another writer made the side of his square 1¼ times the side of the pentagon. In reality, the ratio is irrational. I’ve calculated that if the side of the pentagon is 1—inch, foot, or anything else—the side of the square with the same area is about 1.3117, or roughly 13/10. So we can only hope to solve the puzzle using geometric methods.
Diagram A is our original triangle. We will say it measures 5 inches (or 5 feet) on each side. If we take off a slice at the bottom of any equilateral triangle by a cut parallel with the base, the portion that remains will always be an equilateral triangle; so we first cut off piece 1 and get a triangle 3 inches on every side. The manner of finding directions of the other cuts in A is obvious from the diagram.
Diagram A is our original triangle. Let's say it measures 5 inches (or 5 feet) on each side. If we remove a slice from the bottom of any equilateral triangle with a cut parallel to the base, the portion that remains will always be an equilateral triangle; so we first cut off piece 1 and get a triangle with 3 inches on each side. The way to determine the directions of the other cuts in A is clear from the diagram.
Now, if we want two triangles, 1 will be one of them, and 2, 3, 4, and 5 will fit together, as in B, to form the other. If we want three equilateral triangles, 1 will be one, 4 and 5 will form the second, as in C, and 2 and 3 will form the third, as in D. In B and C the piece 5 is turned over; but there can be no objection to this, as it is not forbidden, and is in no way opposed to the nature of the puzzle.
Now, if we want two triangles, 1 will be one of them, and 2, 3, 4, and 5 will fit together, as shown in B, to create the other. If we want three equilateral triangles, 1 will be one, while 4 and 5 will make up the second, as shown in C, and 2 and 3 will form the third, as depicted in D. In B and C, piece 5 is flipped over; however, there's no issue with this since it's allowed and doesn't contradict the nature of the puzzle.


One object that I had in view when presenting this little puzzle was to point out the uncertainty of the meaning conveyed by the word "oval." Though originally derived from the Latin word ovum, an egg, yet what we understand as the egg-shape (with one end smaller than the other) is only one of many forms of the oval; while some eggs are spherical in shape, and a sphere or circle is most certainly not an oval. If we speak of an ellipse—a conical ellipse—we are on safer ground, but here we must be careful of error. I recollect a Liverpool town councillor, many years ago, whose ignorance of the poultry-yard led him to substitute the word "hen" for "fowl," remarking, "We must remember, gentlemen, that although every cock is a hen, every hen is not a cock!" Similarly, we must always note that although every ellipse is an oval, every oval is not an Pg 174ellipse. It is correct to say that an oval is an oblong curvilinear figure, having two unequal diameters, and bounded by a curve line returning into itself; and this includes the ellipse, but all other figures which in any way approach towards the form of an oval without necessarily having the properties above described are included in the term "oval." Thus the following solution that I give to our puzzle involves the pointed "oval," known among architects as the "vesica piscis."
One goal I had in mind when presenting this little puzzle was to highlight the ambiguity of the term "oval." Although it originally comes from the Latin word ovum, meaning egg, what we think of as the egg shape (with one end smaller than the other) is just one of many forms of the oval; some eggs are actually spherical, and a sphere or circle is definitely not an oval. If we talk about an ellipse—a conical ellipse—we’re on firmer ground, but we still need to be careful about mistakes. I remember a Liverpool town councillor from many years ago, whose lack of knowledge about chickens led him to replace the word "fowl" with "hen," stating, "We must remember, gentlemen, that while every cock is a hen, not every hen is a cock!" Similarly, we should recognize that while every ellipse is an oval, not every oval is an Pg 174ellipse. It’s accurate to say that an oval is an elongated curved shape with two unequal diameters, bounded by a curve that loops back on itself; this does include the ellipse, but any other shapes that resemble an oval without having the properties described above fall under the term "oval." Therefore, the solution I provide to our puzzle involves the pointed "oval," known among architects as the "vesica piscis."

The dotted lines in the table are given for greater clearness, the cuts being made along the other lines. It will be seen that the eight pieces form two stools of exactly the same size and shape with similar hand-holes. These holes are a trifle longer than those in the schoolmaster's stools, but they are much narrower and of considerably smaller area. Of course 5 and 6 can be cut out in one piece—also 7 and 8—making only six pieces in all. But I wished to keep the same number as in the original story.
The dotted lines in the table are there for clarity, with the cuts being made along the other lines. You’ll see that the eight pieces create two stools that are exactly the same size and shape, each with similar hand-holes. These holes are slightly longer than those in the schoolmaster's stools, but they're much narrower and have a significantly smaller area. Of course, pieces 5 and 6 can be cut out as one piece—just like pieces 7 and 8—leading to only six pieces total. But I wanted to keep the same number as in the original story.
When I first gave the above puzzle in a London newspaper, in competition, no correct solution was received, but an ingenious and neatly executed attempt by a man lying in a London infirmary was accompanied by the following note: "Having no compasses here, I was compelled to improvise a pair with the aid of a small penknife, a bit of firewood from a bundle, a piece of tin from a toy engine, a tin tack, and two portions of a hairpin, for points. They are a fairly serviceable pair of compasses, and I shall keep them as a memento of your puzzle."
When I first published the puzzle in a London newspaper as a competition, no one submitted a correct solution. However, I did receive a clever and well-crafted attempt from a man in a London infirmary, along with this note: "Since I don’t have any compasses here, I had to create a makeshift pair using a small penknife, a piece of firewood from a bundle, some tin from a toy engine, a tin tack, and two parts of a hairpin for the points. They work fairly well, and I’ll keep them as a keepsake from your puzzle."
The areas of circles are to each other as the squares of their diameters. If you have a circle 2 in. in diameter and another 4 in. in diameter, then one circle will be four times as great in area as the other, because the square of 4 is four times as great as the square of 2. Now, if we refer to Diagram 1, we see how two equal squares may be cut into four pieces that will form one larger square; from which it is self-evident that any square has just half the area of the square of its diagonal. In Diagram 2 I have introduced a square as it often occurs in ancient drawings of the Monad; which was my reason for believing that the symbol had mathematical meanings, since it will be found to demonstrate the fact that the area of the outer ring or annulus is exactly equal to the area of the inner circle. Compare Diagram 2 with Diagram 1, and you will see that as the square of the diameter CD is double the square of the diameter of the inner circle, or CE, therefore the area of the larger circle is double the area of the smaller one, and consequently the area of the annulus is exactly equal to that of the inner circle. This answers our first question.
The areas of circles relate to each other as the squares of their diameters. If you have a circle with a 2-inch diameter and another with a 4-inch diameter, then one circle will have four times the area of the other because the square of 4 is four times greater than the square of 2. Now, if we look at Diagram 1, we can see how two equal squares can be cut into four pieces that fit together to form one larger square; thus, it’s clear that any square has exactly half the area of the square of its diagonal. In Diagram 2, I have included a square as it often appears in ancient drawings of the Monad; that’s why I believe the symbol has mathematical meanings, since it demonstrates that the area of the outer ring or annulus is exactly equal to the area of the inner circle. Compare Diagram 2 with Diagram 1, and you’ll notice that since the square of the diameter CD is double the square of the diameter of the inner circle, or CE, the area of the larger circle is double the area of the smaller circle. Therefore, the area of the annulus is exactly equal to that of the inner circle. This resolves our first question.

In Diagram 3 I show the simple solution to the second question. It is obviously correct, and may be proved by the cutting and superposition of parts. The dotted lines will also serve to make it evident. The third question is solved by the cut CD in Diagram 2, but it remains to be proved that the piece F is really one-half of the Yin or the Yan. This we will Pg 175do in Diagram 4. The circle K has one-quarter the area of the circle containing Yin and Yan, because its diameter is just one-half the length. Also L in Diagram 3 is, we know, one-quarter the area. It is therefore evident that G is exactly equal to H, and therefore half G is equal to half H. So that what F loses from L it gains from K, and F must be half of Yin or Yan.
In Diagram 3, I present the straightforward solution to the second question. It's clearly correct and can be validated by cutting and rearranging parts. The dotted lines will also clarify this. The third question is addressed by the cut CD in Diagram 2, but we still need to show that piece F is actually half of Yin or Yan. We will Pg 175 demonstrate this in Diagram 4. Circle K has one-quarter the area of the circle containing Yin and Yan because its diameter is exactly half the length. Also, L in Diagram 3 is, as we know, one-quarter the area. Thus, it's clear that G is equal to H, meaning that half of G is equal to half of H. Consequently, what F loses from L, it gains from K, so F must be half of Yin or Yan.

Any square number may be expressed as the sum of two squares in an infinite number of different ways. The solution of the present puzzle forms a simple demonstration of this rule. It is a condition that we give actual dimensions.
Any square number can be expressed as the sum of two squares in an infinite number of ways. The solution to this puzzle serves as a straightforward demonstration of this rule. It is necessary for us to provide actual dimensions.
In this puzzle I ignore the known dimensions of our square and work on the assumption that it is 13n by 13n. The value of n we can afterwards determine. Divide the square as shown (where the dotted lines indicate the original markings) into 169 squares. As 169 is the sum of the two squares 144 and 25, we will proceed to divide the veneer into two squares, measuring respectively 12x12 and 5x5; and as we know that two squares may be formed from one square by dissection in four pieces, we seek a solution in this number. The dark lines in the diagram show where the cuts are to be made. The square 5x5 is cut out whole, and the larger square is formed from the remaining three pieces, B, C, and D, which the reader can easily fit together.
In this puzzle, I'm disregarding the actual size of our square and assuming it's 13n by 13n. We'll determine the value of n later. Divide the square as shown (with the dotted lines indicating the original markings) into 169 smaller squares. Since 169 is the sum of the squares 144 and 25, we'll divide the veneer into two squares measuring 12x12 and 5x5. It's known that you can create two squares from one by cutting it into four pieces, so we're looking for a solution with that in mind. The dark lines in the diagram show where to make the cuts. The 5x5 square is removed entirely, and the larger square is formed from the remaining three pieces, B, C, and D, which the reader can easily assemble.
Now, n is clearly 5/13 of an inch. Consequently our larger square must be 60/13 in. × 60/13 in., and our smaller square 25/13 in. × 25/13 in. The square of 60/13 added to the square of 25/13 is 25. The square is thus divided into as few as four pieces that form two squares of known dimensions, and all the sixteen nails are avoided.
Now, n is clearly \( \frac{5}{13} \) of an inch. So, our larger square must be \( \frac{60}{13} \) in. × \( \frac{60}{13} \) in., and our smaller square \( \frac{25}{13} \) in. × \( \frac{25}{13} \) in. The square of \( \frac{60}{13} \) added to the square of \( \frac{25}{13} \) is 25. The square is thus divided into as few as four pieces that form two squares of known dimensions, and all the sixteen nails are avoided.
Here is a general formula for finding two squares whose sum shall equal a given square, say a². In the case of the solution of our puzzle p = 3, q = 2, and a = 5.
Here’s a general formula for finding two squares that add up to a given square, let’s say a². For our puzzle, the solution is p = 3, q = 2, and a = 5.
_________________________ 2pqa \/ a²( p² + q²)² - (2pqa)² --------- = x; --------------------------- = y p² + q² p² + q² Here x² + y² = a².
The puzzle was to cut the two shoes (including the hoof contained within the outlines) into four pieces, two pieces each, that would fit together and form a perfect circle. It was also stipulated that all four pieces should be different in shape. As a matter of fact, it is a puzzle based on the principle contained in that curious Chinese symbol the Monad. (See No. 158.)
The challenge was to cut the two shoes (including the hoof within the outlines) into four pieces, two pieces each, that would fit together to make a perfect circle. It was also required that all four pieces be different in shape. In fact, it’s a puzzle based on the idea behind that intriguing Chinese symbol, the Monad. (See No. 158.)

The above diagrams give the correct solution to the problem. It will be noticed that 1 and 2 are cut into the required four pieces, all differPg 176ent in shape, that fit together and form the perfect circle shown in Diagram 3. It will further be observed that the two pieces A and B of one shoe and the two pieces C and D of the other form two exactly similar halves of the circle—the Yin and the Yan of the great Monad. It will be seen that the shape of the horseshoe is more easily determined from the circle than the dimensions of the circle from the horseshoe, though the latter presents no difficulty when you know that the curve of the long side of the shoe is part of the circumference of your circle. The difference between B and D is instructive, and the idea is useful in all such cases where it is a condition that the pieces must be different in shape. In forming D we simply add on a symmetrical piece, a curvilinear square, to the piece B. Therefore, in giving either B or D a quarter turn before placing in the new position, a precisely similar effect must be produced.
The diagrams above provide the correct solution to the problem. You'll notice that pieces 1 and 2 have been cut into the required four parts, all distinct in shape, which fit together to create the perfect circle shown in Diagram 3. Additionally, you can see that pieces A and B from one shoe and pieces C and D from the other form two identical halves of the circle—the Yin and Yang of the great Monad. The shape of the horseshoe is more easily defined from the circle than the dimensions of the circle from the horseshoe, although the latter isn’t difficult once you realize that the curve of the long side of the shoe is part of your circle's circumference. The difference between B and D is informative, and this concept is valuable in any situation where it’s necessary for the pieces to have different shapes. To create D, we simply add a symmetrical piece, a curvilinear square, to piece B. Thus, by rotating either B or D a quarter turn before placing it in the new position, we achieve an exactly similar effect.
Fold the circular piece of paper in half along the dotted line shown in Fig. 1, and divide the upper half into five equal parts as indicated. Now fold the paper along the lines, and it will have the appearance shown in Fig. 2. If you want a star like Fig. 3, cut from A to B; if you wish one like Fig. 4, cut from A to C. Thus, the nearer you cut to the point at the bottom the longer will be the points of the star, and the farther off from the point that you cut the shorter will be the points of the star.
Fold the circular piece of paper in half along the dotted line shown in Fig. 1, and divide the upper half into five equal sections as indicated. Now fold the paper along the lines, and it will look like Fig. 2. If you want a star like Fig. 3, cut from A to B; if you prefer one like Fig. 4, cut from A to C. Therefore, the closer you cut to the tip at the bottom, the longer the points of the star will be, and the farther away from the tip you cut, the shorter the points will be.

The reader will probably feel rewarded for any care and patience that he may bestow on cutting out the cardboard chain. We will suppose that he has a piece of cardboard measuring 8 in. by 2½ in., though the dimensions are of no importance. Yet if you want a long chain you must, of course, take a long strip of cardboard. First rule pencil lines B B and C C, half an inch from the edges, and also the short perpendicular lines half an inch apart. Rule lines on the other side in just the same way, and in order that they shall coincide it is well to prick through the card with a needle the points where the short lines end. Now take your penknife and split the card from A A down to B B, and from D D up to C C. Then cut right through the card along all the short perpendicular lines, and half through the card along the short portions of B B and C C that are not dotted. Next turn the card over and cut half through along the short lines on B B and C C at the places that are immediately beneath the dotted lines on the upper side. With a little careful separation of the parts with the penknife, the cardboard may now be divided into two interlacing ladder-like portions, as shown in Fig. 2; and if you cut away all the shaded parts you will get the chain, cut solidly out of the cardboard, without any join, as shown in the illustrations on page 40.
The reader will probably feel a sense of satisfaction for any care and patience they put into cutting out the cardboard chain. Let’s assume they have a piece of cardboard that measures 8 inches by 2.5 inches, though the size doesn’t really matter. If you want a longer chain, you’ll need to use a longer strip of cardboard. First, draw pencil lines B B and C C half an inch from the edges, and also the short vertical lines that are half an inch apart. Draw lines on the other side the same way, and to make sure they align, it’s a good idea to poke holes through the card with a needle at the points where the short lines end. Now, take your craft knife and cut from A A down to B B, and from D D up to C C. Then, cut all the way through the card along the short vertical lines, and halfway through the card along the short sections of B B and C C that aren’t dotted. Next, flip the card over and cut halfway along the short lines on B B and C C at the spots that are directly beneath the dotted lines on the top side. With a little careful separation of the pieces using the craft knife, the cardboard can now be split into two interlacing ladder-like sections, as shown in Fig. 2; and if you remove all the shaded parts, you’ll have the chain, solidly cut out of the cardboard without any joins, as illustrated on page 40.
It is an interesting variant of the puzzle to cut out two keys on a ring—in the same manner without join.
It’s an interesting twist on the puzzle to cut out two keys on a ring—just like before, but without connecting them.

As many as twenty-two pieces may be obtained by the six cuts. The illustration shows a pretty symmetrical solution. The rule in such cases is that every cut shall intersect every other cut and no two intersections coincide; that is to say, every line passes through every other line, but more than two lines do not cross at the same point anywhere. There are other ways of making the cuts, but this rule must always be observed if we are to get the full number of pieces.
As many as twenty-two pieces can be created with six cuts. The illustration shows an attractive symmetrical solution. The guideline in these situations is that each cut must intersect every other cut and no two intersections can overlap; in other words, every line crosses through every other line, but no more than two lines can intersect at the same point. There are other methods for making the cuts, but this rule always needs to be followed if we want to achieve the maximum number of pieces.

The general formula is that with n cuts we can always produce (n(n + 1) + 1)/2 . One of the problems proposed by the late Sam Loyd was to produce the maximum number of pieces by n straight cuts through a solid cheese. Of course, again, the pieces cut off may not be moved or piled. Here we have to deal with the intersection of planes (instead of lines), and the general formula is that with n cuts we may produce ((n - 1)n(n + 1))/6 + n + 1 pieces. It is extremely difficult to "see" the direction and effects of the successive cuts for more than a few of the lowest values of n.
The basic formula is that with n cuts, we can always create (n(n + 1) + 1)/2. One of the challenges posed by the late Sam Loyd was to create the maximum number of pieces by making n straight cuts through a solid block of cheese. Naturally, the cut pieces cannot be moved or stacked. Here, we need to consider the intersection of planes (instead of lines), and the general formula states that with n cuts, we can produce ((n - 1)n(n + 1))/6 + n + 1 pieces. It's really hard to "see" the direction and effects of the successive cuts for more than a few of the lowest values of n.
The illustration shows the direction for placing the three fences so as to enclose every pig in a separate sty. The greatest number of spaces that can be enclosed with three straight lines in a square is seven, as shown in the last puzzle. Bearing this fact in mind, the puzzle must be solved by trial.
The illustration shows how to position the three fences to separate each pig into its own pen. The maximum number of areas that can be enclosed with three straight lines in a square is seven, as demonstrated in the last puzzle. Keeping this in mind, you need to solve the puzzle by experimenting.

Four fences only are necessary, as follows:—
Four fences are all that's needed, as follows:—

The illustration requires no explanation. It shows clearly how the three circles may be drawn so that every cat has a separate enclosure, and cannot approach another cat without crossing a line.
The illustration speaks for itself. It clearly shows how the three circles can be drawn so that each cat has its own space and can't get to another cat without crossing a line.

The illustration shows how the pudding may be cut into two parts of exactly the same size and shape. The lines must necessarily pass through the points A, B, C, D, and E. But, subject to this condition, they may be varied in an infinite number of ways. For example, at a point midway between A and the edge, the line may be completed in an unlimited number of ways (straight or crooked), provided it be exactly reflected from E to the opposite edge. And similar variations may be introduced at other places.
The illustration shows how the pudding can be divided into two equal parts, both in size and shape. The lines must go through points A, B, C, D, and E. However, with this requirement, there are countless ways to vary them. For instance, at a point halfway between A and the edge, the line can be finished in unlimited ways (straight or curved), as long as it perfectly reflects from E to the opposite edge. Similar variations can also be made at other locations.

The diagrams will show how the figures are constructed—each with the seven Tangrams. It will be noticed that in both cases the head, hat, and arm are precisely alike, and the width at the base of the body the same. But this body contains four pieces in the first case, and in the second design only three. The first is larger than the second by exactly that narrow strip indicated by the dotted line between A and B. Pg 179This strip is therefore exactly equal in area to the piece forming the foot in the other design, though when thus distributed along the side of the body the increased dimension is not easily apparent to the eye.
The diagrams will show how the figures are made—each using the seven Tangrams. You'll notice that in both cases the head, hat, and arm are exactly the same, and the width at the base of the body is identical. However, the first body has four pieces, while the second design only has three. The first is larger than the second by exactly that narrow strip shown by the dotted line between A and B. Pg 179This strip is therefore exactly equal in area to the piece that forms the foot in the other design, though when spread along the side of the body, the increase in size isn't easily noticeable.


The two pieces of brocade marked A will fit together and form one perfect square cushion top, and the two pieces marked B will form the other.
The two pieces of brocade labeled A will fit together to create one perfect square cushion top, and the two pieces labeled B will create the other.
The illustration explains itself. Divide the bunting into 25 squares (because this number is the sum of two other squares—16 and 9), and then cut along the thick lines. The two pieces marked A form one square, and the two pieces marked B form the other.
The illustration is self-explanatory. Split the bunting into 25 squares (because this number is the total of two other squares—16 and 9), and then cut along the bold lines. The two pieces labeled A make one square, and the two pieces labeled B create the other.


Pg 180The first step is to find six different square numbers that sum to 196. For example, 1 + 4 + 25 + 36 + 49 + 81 = 196; 1 + 4 + 9 + 25 + 36 + 121 = 196; 1 + 9 + 16 + 25 + 64 + 81 = 196. The rest calls for individual judgment and ingenuity, and no definite rules can be given for procedure. The annexed diagrams will show solutions for the first two cases stated. Of course the three pieces marked A and those marked B will fit together and form a square in each case. The assembling of the parts may be slightly varied, and the reader may be interested in finding a solution for the third set of squares I have given.
Pg 180The first step is to find six different square numbers that add up to 196. For instance, 1 + 4 + 25 + 36 + 49 + 81 = 196; 1 + 4 + 9 + 25 + 36 + 121 = 196; 1 + 9 + 16 + 25 + 64 + 81 = 196. The rest depends on personal judgment and creativity, and there are no strict rules for how to proceed. The diagrams provided will show solutions for the first two cases mentioned. Of course, the three pieces labeled A and those labeled B will fit together to form a square in each case. The arrangement of the parts can vary slightly, and the reader may find it interesting to discover a solution for the third set of squares I’ve given.
The following diagram shows how the quilt should be constructed.
The following diagram shows how to put together the quilt.

There is, I believe, practically only one solution to this puzzle. The fewest separate squares must be eleven. The portions must be of the sizes given, the three largest pieces must be arranged as shown, and the remaining group of eight squares may be "reflected," but cannot be differently arranged.
There is, I think, basically only one solution to this puzzle. The fewest separate squares must be eleven. The pieces must be the sizes provided; the three largest pieces must be arranged as shown, and the remaining group of eight squares can be "reflected," but can't be rearranged differently.

So far as I have been able to discover, there is only one possible solution to fulfil the conditions. The pieces fit together as in Diagram 1, Diagrams 2 and 3 showing how the two original squares are to be cut. It will be seen that the pieces A and C have each twenty chequers, and are therefore of equal area. Diagram 4 (built up with the dissected square No. 5) solves the puzzle, except for the small condition contained in the words, "I cut the two squares in the manner desired." In this case the smaller square is preserved intact. Still I give it as an illustration of a feature of the puzzle. It is impossible in a problem of this kind to give a quarter-turn to any of the pieces if the pattern is to properly match, but (as in the case of F, in Diagram 4) we may give a symmetrical piece a half-turn—that is, turn it upside down. Whether or not a piece may be given a quarter-turn, a half-turn, or no turn at all in these chequered problems, depends on the character of the design, on the material employed, and also on the form of the piece itself.
As far as I've been able to find, there's only one possible solution to meet the conditions. The pieces fit together as shown in Diagram 1, with Diagrams 2 and 3 illustrating how the two original squares should be cut. You'll see that pieces A and C each have twenty squares, so they have equal area. Diagram 4 (made up of dissected square No. 5) solves the puzzle, except for the minor condition stated in the phrase, "I cut the two squares in the manner desired." In this case, the smaller square remains whole. Still, I include it as an example of a feature of the puzzle. In this type of problem, it’s impossible to give a quarter-turn to any of the pieces if the pattern is to align correctly, but (as in the case of F in Diagram 4) we can give a symmetrical piece a half-turn—that is, flip it upside down. Whether a piece can be given a quarter-turn, a half-turn, or no turn at all in these chequered puzzles depends on the design, the material used, and the shape of the piece itself.




There is only one solution that will enable us to retain the larger of the two pieces with as little as possible cut from it. Fig. 1 in the following diagram shows how the smaller piece is to be cut, and Fig. 2 how we should dissect the larger piece, while in Fig. 3 we have the new square 10 × 10 formed by the four pieces with all the chequers properly matched. It will be seen that the piece D contains fifty-two chequers, and this is the largest piece that it is possible to preserve under the conditions.
There’s only one way for us to keep the bigger of the two pieces while cutting as little from it as possible. Fig. 1 in the diagram below shows how to cut the smaller piece, and Fig. 2 illustrates how we should cut the larger piece. In Fig. 3, we can see the new 10 × 10 square formed by the four pieces with all the squares properly matched. It’s clear that piece D has fifty-two squares, and this is the largest piece we can keep given the conditions.

Cut along the thick lines, and the four pieces will fit together and form a perfect square in the manner shown in the smaller diagram.
Cut along the thick lines, and the four pieces will fit together to form a perfect square as shown in the smaller diagram.

The areas of the top and side multiplied together and divided by the area of the end give the square of the length. Similarly, the product of top and end divided by side gives the square of the breadth; and the product of side and end divided by the top gives the square of the depth. But we only need one of these operations. Let us take the first. Thus, 120 × 96 divided by 80 equals 144, the square of 12. Therefore the length is 12 inches, from which we can, of course, at once get the breadth and depth—10 in. and 8 in. respectively.
The area of the top and the side multiplied together and divided by the area of the end gives you the square of the length. Similarly, the product of the top and the end divided by the side gives the square of the breadth, and the product of the side and the end divided by the top gives the square of the depth. But we only need to do one of these calculations. Let’s use the first one. So, 120 × 96 divided by 80 equals 144, which is the square of 12. Therefore, the length is 12 inches, from which we can easily find the breadth and depth—10 inches and 8 inches, respectively.
Whenever we have one side (a) of a right-angled triangle, and know the difference between the second side and the hypotenuse (which difference we will call b), then the length of the hypotenuse will be
Whenever we have one side (a) of a right triangle and know the difference between the second side and the hypotenuse (which we’ll call b), the length of the hypotenuse will be
a2/2b + b/2
a2/2b + b/2
In the case of our puzzle this will be
In the case of our puzzle, this will be
(48 × 48)/6 + 1½ in. = 32 ft. 1½ in.,
(48 × 48)/6 + 1½ in. = 32 ft. 1½ in.,
which is the length of the rope.
which is the length of the rope.

The diagram shows the most equitable division of the land possible, "so that each son shall receive land of exactly the same area and exactly similar in shape," and so that each shall have access to the well in the centre without trespass on another's land. The conditions Pg 182do not require that each son's land shall be in one piece, but it is necessary that the two portions assigned to an individual should be kept apart, or two adjoining portions might be held to be one piece, in which case the condition as to shape would have to be broken. At present there is only one shape for each piece of land—half a square divided diagonally. And A, B, C, and D can each reach their land from the outside, and have each equal access to the well in the centre.
The diagram shows the fairest way to divide the land, "so that each son receives a plot of exactly the same size and shape," and so that each one can access the well in the center without intruding on someone else's property. The conditions Pg 182 do not require that each son's land be a single piece, but it is essential that the two sections assigned to a person remain separate; otherwise, two neighboring sections could be considered one piece, which would violate the shape requirements. Currently, there is just one shape for each plot of land—a half square cut diagonally. A, B, C, and D can all access their land from the outside, and each has equal access to the well in the center.
The three stations form a triangle, with sides 13, 14, and 15 miles. Make the 14 side the base; then the height of the triangle is 12 and the area 84. Multiply the three sides together and divide by four times the area. The result is eight miles and one-eighth, the distance required.
The three stations create a triangle with sides measuring 13, 14, and 15 miles. Use the 14-mile side as the base; the height of the triangle is 12 miles, and the area is 84 square miles. Multiply the three sides together and divide that by four times the area. The answer is eight and one-eighth miles, which is the distance we need.
Half the sum of the four sides is 144. From this deduct in turn the four sides, and we get 64, 99, 44, and 81. Multiply these together, and we have as the result the square of 4,752. Therefore the garden contained 4,752 square yards. Of course the tree being equidistant from the four corners shows that the garden is a quadrilateral that may be inscribed in a circle.
Half the total of the four sides is 144. If we subtract each of the four sides, we get 64, 99, 44, and 81. If we multiply these together, we find the result is the square of 4,752. So, the garden covers an area of 4,752 square yards. Obviously, the tree being equidistant from the four corners indicates that the garden is a quadrilateral that can fit inside a circle.
Make a fold in the paper, as shown by the dotted line in the illustration. Then, taking any two points, as A and B, describe semicircles on the line alternately from the centres B and A, being careful to make the ends join, and the thing is done. Of course this is not a true spiral, but the puzzle was to produce the particular spiral that was shown, and that was drawn in this simple manner.
Make a fold in the paper along the dotted line in the illustration. Then, take any two points, like A and B, and draw semicircles on the line alternately from the centers B and A, making sure the ends connect, and you're done. This isn't a true spiral, but the challenge was to create the particular spiral shown, and it was done simply like this.

If you place your sheet of paper round the surface of a cylindrical bottle or canister, the oval can be drawn with one sweep of the compasses.
If you wrap a sheet of paper around the surface of a cylindrical bottle or canister, you can draw the oval in one smooth motion with a compass.
As the flag measures 4 ft. by 3 ft., the length of the diagonal (from corner to corner) is 5 ft. All you need do is to deduct half the length of this diagonal (2½ ft.) from a quarter of the distance all round the edge of the flag (3½ ft.)—a quarter of 14 ft. The difference (1 ft.) is the required width of the arm of the red cross. The area of the cross will then be the same as that of the white ground.
As the flag measures 4 ft. by 3 ft., the length of the diagonal (from corner to corner) is 5 ft. All you need to do is subtract half the length of this diagonal (2½ ft.) from a quarter of the distance around the edge of the flag (3½ ft.)—a quarter of 14 ft. The difference (1 ft.) is the width of the arm of the red cross. The area of the cross will then be the same as that of the white background.
Multiply together, and also add together, the heights of the two poles and divide one result Pg 183by the other. That is, if the two heights are a and b respectively, then ab/(a + b) will give the height of the intersection. In the particular case of our puzzle, the intersection was therefore 2 ft. 11 in. from the ground. The distance that the poles are apart does not affect the answer. The reader who may have imagined that this was an accidental omission will perhaps be interested in discovering the reason why the distance between the poles may be ignored.
Multiply the heights of the two poles and add them together, then divide one result Pg 183 by the other. In other words, if the heights are a and b, then ab/(a + b) will give you the height of the intersection. In this specific puzzle, the intersection was 2 ft. 11 in. from the ground. The distance between the poles doesn’t change the answer. The reader who thought this might have been a mistake will probably be curious to know why the distance between the poles can be disregarded.

Draw a straight line, as shown in the diagram, from the milking-stool perpendicular to the near bank of the river, and continue it to the point A, which is the same distance from that bank as the stool. If you now draw the straight line from A to the door of the dairy, it will cut the river at B. Then the shortest route will be from the stool to B and thence to the door. Obviously the shortest distance from A to the door is the straight line, and as the distance from the stool to any point of the river is the same as from A to that point, the correctness of the solution will probably appeal to every reader without any acquaintance with geometry.
Draw a straight line, as shown in the diagram, from the milking stool straight out to the riverbank, and extend it to point A, which is the same distance from that bank as the stool. If you now draw a straight line from A to the dairy door, it will intersect the river at point B. The shortest route will be from the stool to B and then to the door. Clearly, the shortest distance from A to the door is a straight line, and since the distance from the stool to any point on the river is the same as from A to that point, the correctness of the solution should be obvious to every reader, even those without any knowledge of geometry.
If a round ball is placed on the level ground, six similar balls may be placed round it (all on the ground), so that they shall all touch the central ball.
If a round ball is placed on flat ground, six similar balls can be arranged around it (all on the ground) in such a way that they all touch the central ball.
As for the second question, the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference we call pi; and though we cannot express this ratio in exact numbers, we can get sufficiently near to it for all practical purposes. However, in this case it is not necessary to know the value of pi at all. Because, to find the area of the surface of a sphere we multiply the square of the diameter by pi; to find the volume of a sphere we multiply the cube of the diameter by one-sixth of pi. Therefore we may ignore pi, and have merely to seek a number whose square shall equal one-sixth of its cube. This number is obviously 6. Therefore the ball was 6 ft. in diameter, for the area of its surface will be 36 times pi in square feet, and its volume also 36 times pi in cubic feet.
Regarding the second question, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is called pi; although we can't express this ratio in exact numbers, we can get close enough for practical use. However, in this case, knowing the value of pi isn't necessary. To find the surface area of a sphere, we multiply the square of the diameter by pi; to find the volume of a sphere, we multiply the cube of the diameter by one-sixth of pi. So we can ignore pi and simply look for a number whose square equals one-sixth of its cube. That number is obviously 6. Therefore, the ball was 6 ft. in diameter, since the surface area will be 36 times pi in square feet, and its volume will also be 36 times pi in cubic feet.
The triangular piece of land that was not for sale contains exactly eleven acres. Of course it is not difficult to find the answer if we follow the eccentric and tricky tracks of intricate trigonometry; or I might say that the application of a well-known formula reduces the problem to finding one-quarter of the square root of (4 × 370 × 116) - (370 + 116 - 74)²—that is a quarter of the square root of 1936, which is one-quarter of 44, or 11 acres. But all that the reader really requires to know is the Pythagorean law on which many puzzles have been built, that in any right-angled triangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. I shall dispense with all "surds" and similar absurdities, notwithstanding the fact that the sides of our triangle are clearly incommensurate, since we cannot exactly extract the square roots of the three square areas.
The triangular piece of land that isn’t for sale measures exactly eleven acres. It's not hard to find the answer if we follow the complicated and tricky paths of detailed trigonometry; or I could say that using a well-known formula simplifies the problem to finding a quarter of the square root of (4 × 370 × 116) - (370 + 116 - 74)²—that is, a quarter of the square root of 1936, which is a quarter of 44, or 11 acres. But all the reader really needs to know is the Pythagorean theorem, which many puzzles are based on: in any right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides. I’ll skip over all “surds” and similar complexities, even though the sides of our triangle are clearly incommensurate since we can’t exactly calculate the square roots of the three square areas.

In the above diagram ABC represents our triangle. ADB is a right-angled triangle, AD measuring 9 and BD measuring 17, because the square of 9 added to the square of 17 equals 370, the known area of the square on AB. Also AEC is a right-angled triangle, and the square of 5 added to the square of 7 equals 74, the square estate on A C. Similarly, CFB is a right-angled triangle, for the square of 4 added to the square of 10 equals 116, the square estate on BC. Now, although the sides of our triangular estate are incommensurate, we have in this diagram all the exact figures that we need to discover the area with precision.
In the diagram above, ABC represents our triangle. ADB is a right triangle, with AD measuring 9 and BD measuring 17, since the square of 9 plus the square of 17 equals 370, the known area of the square on AB. AEC is also a right triangle, where the square of 5 plus the square of 7 equals 74, the square area on AC. Similarly, CFB is a right triangle, as the square of 4 plus the square of 10 equals 116, the square area on BC. Even though the sides of our triangular area are not proportional, this diagram provides us with all the exact measurements we need to calculate the area accurately.
The area of our triangle ADB is clearly half of 9 × 17, or 76½ acres. The area of AEC is half of 5 × 7, or 17½ acres; the area of CFB is half of 4 × 10, or 20 acres; and the area of the oblong EDFC is obviously 4 × 7, or 28 acres. Now, if we add together 17½, 20, and Pg 18428 = 65½, and deduct this sum from the area of the large triangle ADB (which we have found to be 76½ acres), what remains must clearly be the area of ABC. That is to say, the area we want must be 76½ - 65½ = 11 acres exactly.
The area of our triangle ADB is clearly half of 9 × 17, or 76.5 acres. The area of AEC is half of 5 × 7, or 17.5 acres; the area of CFB is half of 4 × 10, or 20 acres; and the area of the rectangle EDFC is obviously 4 × 7, or 28 acres. Now, if we add together 17.5, 20, and Pg 18428 = 65.5, and subtract this total from the area of the large triangle ADB (which we found to be 76.5 acres), what remains must clearly be the area of ABC. In other words, the area we want must be 76.5 - 65.5 = 11 acres exactly.
The area of the complete estate is exactly one hundred acres. To find this answer I use the following little formula,
The total size of the estate is exactly one hundred acres. To calculate this, I use the following simple formula,
__________________ \/4ab - (a + b - c)²; _____________________ 4
where a, b, c represent the three square areas, in any order. The expression gives the area of the triangle A. This will be found to be 9 acres. It can be easily proved that A, B, C, and D are all equal in area; so the answer is 26 + 20 + 18 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 100 acres.
where a, b, c represent the three square areas in any order. The expression gives the area of triangle A. This will be found to be 9 acres. It's easy to prove that A, B, C, and D all have equal areas; so the answer is 26 + 20 + 18 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 100 acres.

Here is the proof. If every little dotted square in the diagram represents an acre, this must be a correct plan of the estate, for the squares of 5 and 1 together equal 26; the squares of 4 and 2 equal 20; and the squares of 3 and 3 added together equal 18. Now we see at once that the area of the triangle E is 2½, F is 4½, and G is 4. These added together make 11 acres, which we deduct from the area of the rectangle, 20 acres, and we find that the field A contains exactly 9 acres. If you want to prove that B, C, and D are equal in size to A, divide them in two by a line from the middle of the longest side to the opposite angle, and you will find that the two pieces in every case, if cut out, will exactly fit together and form A.
Here is the proof. If every little dotted square in the diagram represents an acre, this must be an accurate layout of the estate, because the squares of 5 and 1 together equal 26; the squares of 4 and 2 equal 20; and the squares of 3 and 3 add up to 18. Now we can see that the area of triangle E is 2½, F is 4½, and G is 4. When we add these, we get 11 acres, which we subtract from the area of the rectangle, 20 acres, and we find that field A contains exactly 9 acres. If you want to prove that B, C, and D are the same size as A, divide them in half with a line from the middle of the longest side to the opposite angle, and you'll see that the two pieces in each case, when cut out, will perfectly fit together to form A.
Or we can get our proof in a still easier way. The complete area of the squared diagram is 12 × 12 = 144 acres, and the portions 1, 2, 3, 4, not included in the estate, have the respective areas of 12½, 17½, 9½, and 4½. These added together make 44, which, deducted from 144, leaves 100 as the required area of the complete estate.
Or we can find our proof in an even simpler way. The total area of the squared diagram is 12 × 12 = 144 acres, and the areas of portions 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are not included in the estate, are 12½, 17½, 9½, and 4½ acres, respectively. When we add these up, we get 44, which, when subtracted from 144, leaves us with 100 as the total area of the complete estate.
Referring to the original diagram, let AC be x, let CD be x - 9, and let EC be x - 5. Then x - 5 is a mean proportional between x - 9 and x, from which we find that x equals 25. Therefore the diameters are 50 in. and 41 in. respectively.
Referring to the original diagram, let AC be x, let CD be x - 9, and let EC be x - 5. Then x - 5 is a mean proportional between x - 9 and x, which means that x equals 25. So, the diameters are 50 in. and 41 in., respectively.

The answer given in all the old books is that shown in Fig. 1, where the curved wall shuts out the cottages from access to the lake. But in seeking the direction for the "shortest possible" wall most readers to-day, remembering that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, will adopt the method shown in Fig. 2. This is certainly an improvement, yet the correct answer is really that indicated in Fig. 3. A measurement of the lines will show that there is a considerable saving of length in this wall.
The answer found in all the old books is the one shown in Fig. 1, where the curved wall blocks the cottages from reaching the lake. However, when looking for the "shortest possible" wall, most readers today will remember that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and will choose the method shown in Fig. 2. This is definitely an improvement, but the actual correct answer is the one indicated in Fig. 3. A measurement of the lines will show that this wall saves a significant amount of length.
This is the answer that is always given and accepted as correct: Two more hurdles would be necessary, for the pen was twenty-four by one (as in Fig. A on next page), and by moving one of the sides and placing an extra hurdle at each end (as in Fig. B) the area would be doubled. The diagrams are not to scale. Now there is no condition in the puzzle that requires the sheep-fold to be of any particular form. But even if we accept the point that the pen was twenty-four by one, the answer utterly fails, for two extra hurdles are certainly not at all necessary. For example, I arrange the fifty hurdles as in Fig. C, and as the area is increased from twenty-four "square hurdles" to 156, there is now accommodation for 650 sheep. If it be held that the area must be exactly double that of the original pen, then I construct it (as in Fig. D) with twenty-eight hurdles only, and have twenty-two in hand for other purposes on the farm. Even if it were insisted that all the original hurdles must be used, then I should construct it as in Fig. E, where I can get the area as exact as any farmer could possibly require, even if we have to allow for the fact that the sheep might not be able to graze at the extreme ends. Thus we see that, from any Pg 185point of view, the accepted answer to this ancient little puzzle breaks down. And yet attention has never before been drawn to the absurdity.
This is the answer that's always given and accepted as correct: Two more hurdles would be necessary because the pen was twenty-four by one (as shown in Fig. A on the next page), and by moving one of the sides and adding an extra hurdle at each end (as in Fig. B), the area would be doubled. The diagrams aren’t to scale. Now, there’s no requirement in the puzzle that the sheepfold has to be any specific shape. But even if we accept that the pen was twenty-four by one, the answer completely fails because two extra hurdles are definitely not needed. For instance, I arrange the fifty hurdles as shown in Fig. C, and by increasing the area from twenty-four "square hurdles" to 156, there's now enough space for 650 sheep. If it's argued that the area must be exactly double that of the original pen, I can create it (as in Fig. D) with just twenty-eight hurdles and still have twenty-two left over for other uses on the farm. Even if it’s insisted that all the original hurdles must be used, I can build it as shown in Fig. E, where I can achieve an area as precise as any farmer could possibly need, even considering that the sheep might not be able to graze at the very ends. Thus, we see that, from any point of view, the accepted answer to this old little puzzle falls apart. Yet, no one has ever pointed out the absurdity before.

The puzzle was to divide the circular field into four equal parts by three walls, each wall being of exactly the same length. There are two essential difficulties in this problem. These are: (1) the thickness of the walls, and (2) the condition that these walls are three in number. As to the first point, since we are told that the walls are brick walls, we clearly cannot ignore their thickness, while we have to find a solution that will equally work, whether the walls be of a thickness of one, two, three, or more bricks.
The challenge was to split the circular field into four equal sections using three walls, each wall being exactly the same length. There are two main difficulties with this problem. These are: (1) the thickness of the walls, and (2) the requirement that there are three walls. Regarding the first issue, since it states that the walls are brick walls, we clearly can't ignore their thickness, and we need to come up with a solution that will work regardless of whether the walls are one, two, three, or more bricks thick.

The second point requires a little more consideration. How are we to distinguish between a wall and walls? A straight wall without any bend in it, no matter how long, cannot ever become "walls," if it is neither broken nor intersected in any way. Also our circular field is clearly enclosed by one wall. But if it had happened to be a square or a triangular enclosure, would there be respectively four and three walls or only one enclosing wall in each case? It is true that we speak of "the four walls" of a square building or garden, but this is only a conventional way of saying "the four sides." If you were speaking of the actual brickwork, you would say, "I am going to enclose this square garden with a wall." Angles clearly do not affect the question, for we may have a zigzag wall just as well as a straight one, and the Great Wall of China is a good example of a wall with plenty of angles. Now, if you look at Diagrams 1, 2, and 3, you may be puzzled to declare whether there are in each case two or four new walls; but you cannot call them three, as required in our puzzle. The intersection either affects the question or it does not affect it.
The second point needs a bit more thought. How do we differentiate between a wall and walls? A straight wall without any bends, no matter how long, can never be considered "walls" if it isn't broken or intersected in any way. Our circular field is clearly surrounded by one wall. But if it happened to be a square or triangular enclosure, would there be four and three walls respectively, or just one enclosing wall in each case? It's true that we refer to "the four walls" of a square building or garden, but that's just a conventional way of saying "the four sides." If you were talking about the actual brickwork, you would say, "I am going to enclose this square garden with a wall." Angles don’t change the discussion, since we can have a zigzag wall just as easily as a straight one, and the Great Wall of China is a perfect example of a wall with lots of angles. Now, if you look at Diagrams 1, 2, and 3, you might be confused about whether there are two or four new walls in each case, but you can't call them three, as our puzzle requires. The intersection either impacts the question or it doesn't.
If you tie two pieces of string firmly together, or splice them in a nautical manner, they become "one piece of string." If you simply let them lie across one another or overlap, they remain "two pieces of string." It is all a question of joining and welding. It may similarly be held that if two walls be built into one another—I might almost say, if they be made homogeneous—they become one wall, in which case Diagrams 1, 2, and 3 might each be said to show one wall or two, if it be indicated that the four ends only touch, and are not really built into, the outer circular wall.
If you securely tie two pieces of string together, or splice them in a nautical way, they become "one piece of string." If you just let them lie on top of each other or overlap, they stay as "two pieces of string." It's really about how you connect them. The same can be said if two walls are built into each other—I might even say if they become uniform—they become one wall. In that case, Diagrams 1, 2, and 3 could each be described as showing one wall or two, as long as it’s clear that the four ends only touch and aren’t actually built into the outer circular wall.
The objection to Diagram 4 is that although it shows the three required walls (assuming the ends are not built into the outer circular wall), yet it is only absolutely correct when we assume the walls to have no thickness. A brick has thickness, and therefore the fact throws the whole method out and renders it only approximately correct.
The problem with Diagram 4 is that, while it shows the three necessary walls (assuming the ends aren't attached to the outer circular wall), it's only completely accurate if we assume the walls have no thickness. Since a brick has thickness, this fact undermines the entire method and makes it only roughly correct.
Diagram 5 shows, perhaps, the only correct and perfectly satisfactory solution. It will be noticed that, in addition to the circular wall, there are three new walls, which touch (and so enclose) but are not built into one another. This solution may be adapted to any desired thickness of wall, and its correctness as to area and length of wall space is so obvious that it is unnecessary to explain it. I will, however, just say that the semicircular piece of ground that each tenant gives to his neighbour is exactly equal to the semicircular piece that his neighbour gives to him, while any section of wall space found in one garden is precisely repeated in all the others. Of course there is an infinite number of ways in which this solution may be correctly varied.
Diagram 5 shows what is probably the only correct and completely satisfactory solution. You’ll notice that, in addition to the circular wall, there are three new walls that touch each other and enclose the area but aren't built into one another. This solution can be adjusted to any desired wall thickness, and its accuracy in terms of area and wall space is so clear that it doesn’t need further explanation. I will just mention that the semicircular piece of land each tenant gives to their neighbor is exactly equal to the semicircular piece their neighbor gives to them, while any section of wall space found in one garden is exactly replicated in all the others. Of course, there are countless ways in which this solution can be correctly modified.

All that Lady Belinda need do was this: She should measure from A to B, fold her tape in four and mark off the point E, which is thus one quarter of the side. Then, in the same way, mark off the point F, one-fourth of the side AD Now, if she makes EG equal to AF, and GH equal to EF, then AH is the required width for the path in order that the bed shall be exactly half the area of the garden. An exact numerical measurement can only be obtained when the sum of the squares of the two sides is a square number. Thus, if the garden measured 12 poles by 5 poles (where the squares of 12 and 5, 144 and 25, sum to 169, the square of 13), then 12 added to 5, less 13, would equal four, and a quarter of this, 1 pole, would be the width of the path.
All that Lady Belinda had to do was this: She needed to measure from A to B, fold her tape measure into four sections, and mark the point E, which is one quarter of the side. Then, in the same way, mark the point F, one-fourth of the side AD. Now, if she makes EG equal to AF, and GH equal to EF, then AH is the required width for the path so that the bed will be exactly half the area of the garden. An exact numerical measurement can only be achieved when the sum of the squares of the two sides is a perfect square. So, if the garden measured 12 poles by 5 poles (where the squares of 12 and 5, 144 and 25, add up to 169, which is the square of 13), then 12 added to 5, minus 13, would equal four, and a quarter of this, 1 pole, would be the width of the path.

This problem is quite simple if properly attacked. Let us suppose the triangle ABC to represent our half-acre field, and the shaded portion to be the quarter-acre over which the goat will graze when tethered to the corner C. Now, as six equal equilateral triangles placed together will form a regular hexagon, as shown, it is evident that the shaded pasture is just one-sixth of the complete area of a circle. Therefore all we require is the radius (CD) of a circle containing six quarter-acres or 1½ acres, which is equal to 9,408,960 square inches. As we only want our answer "to the nearest inch," it is sufficiently exact for our purpose if we assume that as 1 is to 3.1416, so is the diameter of a circle to its circumference. If, therefore, we divide the last number I gave by 3.1416, and extract the square root, we find that 1,731 inches, or 48 yards 3 inches, is the required length of the tether "to the nearest inch."
This problem is quite simple if we approach it correctly. Let's assume triangle ABC represents our half-acre field, and the shaded area is the quarter-acre where the goat will graze when tied to corner C. Since six equal equilateral triangles placed together form a regular hexagon, as demonstrated, it’s clear that the shaded pasture is just one-sixth of the total area of a circle. Therefore, we need the radius (CD) of a circle that includes six quarter-acres, or 1½ acres, which equals 9,408,960 square inches. Since we only need our answer "to the nearest inch," it’s good enough for our purposes to use the relationship that as 1 is to 3.1416, so is the diameter of a circle to its circumference. If we divide the last number I provided by 3.1416 and take the square root, we find that 1,731 inches, or 48 yards 3 inches, is the required length of the tether "to the nearest inch."
Let AB in the following diagram be the given straight line. With the centres A and B and radius AB describe the two circles. Mark off DE and EF equal to AD. With the centres A and F and radius DF describe arcs intersecting at G. With the centres A and B and distance BG describe arcs GHK and N. Make HK equal to AB and HL equal to HB. Then with centres K and L and radius AB describe arcs intersecting at I. Make BM equal to BI. Finally, with the centre M and radius MB cut the line in C, and the point C is the required middle of the line AB. For greater exactitude you can mark off R from A (as you did M from B), and from R describe another arc at C. This also solves the problem, to find a point midway between two given points without the straight line.
Let AB in the following diagram be the given straight line. With centers A and B and a radius equal to AB, draw the two circles. Measure out DE and EF to be the same length as AD. With centers A and F and a radius of DF, draw arcs that intersect at G. With centers A and B and distance BG, draw arcs GHK and N. Make HK equal to AB and HL equal to HB. Then, with centers K and L and a radius of AB, draw arcs that intersect at I. Make BM equal to BI. Finally, with center M and a radius MB, cut the line at C, and point C is the required midpoint of line AB. For greater accuracy, you can measure out R from A (just like you did M from B), and from R draw another arc at C. This also provides a solution for finding a point halfway between two given points without using the straight line.

I will put the young geometer in the way of a rigid proof. First prove that twice the square of the line AB equals the square of the distance BG, from which it follows that HABN are the four corners of a square. To prove that I is the centre of this square, draw a line from H to P through QIB and continue the arc HK to P. Then, conceiving the necessary lines to be drawn, the angle HKP, being in a semicircle, is a right angle. Let fall the perpendicular KQ, and by similar triangles, and from the fact that HKI is an isosceles triangle by the construction, it can be proved that HI is half of HB. We can similarly prove that C is the centre of the square of which AIB are three corners.
I will guide the young geometer to a solid proof. First, prove that twice the square of line AB equals the square of the distance BG, which shows that HABN are the four corners of a square. To prove that I is the center of this square, draw a line from H to P through QIB and extend the arc HK to P. Then, by considering the necessary lines, the angle HKP, being in a semicircle, is a right angle. Drop the perpendicular KQ, and through similar triangles, and since HKI is an isosceles triangle by construction, it can be shown that HI is half of HB. We can also prove that C is the center of the square with AIB as three of its corners.
I am aware that this is not the simplest possible solution.
I know this isn’t the easiest solution.
The first diagram is the answer that nearly every one will give to this puzzle, and at first sight it seems quite satisfactory. But consider the conditions. We have to lay "every one of the sticks on the table." Now, if a ladder be Pg 187placed against a wall with only one end on the ground, it can hardly be said that it is "laid on the ground." And if we place the sticks in the above manner, it is only possible to make one end of two of them touch the table: to say that every one lies on the table would not be correct. To obtain a solution it is only necessary to have our sticks of proper dimensions. Say the long sticks are each 2 ft. in length and the short ones 1 ft. Then the sticks must be 3 in. thick, when the three equal squares may be enclosed, as shown in the second diagram. If I had said "matches" instead of "sticks," the puzzle would be impossible, because an ordinary match is about twenty-one times as long as it is broad, and the enclosed rectangles would not be squares.
The first diagram is the answer that almost everyone will give to this puzzle, and at first glance, it seems completely fine. But think about the conditions. We need to lay "every one of the sticks on the table." Now, if a ladder is Pg 187 leaned against a wall with only one end on the ground, it can hardly be said that it is "laid on the ground." And if we position the sticks in the way shown above, it's only possible for one end of two of them to touch the table: saying that every one lies on the table wouldn't be accurate. To find a solution, the sticks just need to be the right size. Let's say the long sticks are each 2 ft. long and the short ones are 1 ft. Then the sticks should be 3 in. thick, so that the three equal squares can be enclosed, as illustrated in the second diagram. If I had said "matches" instead of "sticks," the puzzle would be impossible, because a standard match is about twenty-one times longer than it is wide, and the enclosed rectangles wouldn't be squares.

I have found that a large number of people imagine that the following is a correct solution of the problem. Using the letters in the diagram below, they argue that if you make the distance BA one-third of BC, and therefore the area of the rectangle ABE equal to that of the triangular remainder, the card must hang with the long side horizontal. Readers will remember the jest of Charles II., who induced the Royal Society to meet and discuss the reason why the water in a vessel will not rise if you put a live fish in it; but in the middle of the proceedings one of the least distinguished among them quietly slipped out and made the experiment, when he found that the water did rise! If my correspondents had similarly made the experiment with a piece of cardboard, they would have found at once their error. Area is one thing, but gravitation is quite another. The fact of that triangle sticking its leg out to D has to be compensated for by additional area in the rectangle. As a matter of fact, the ratio of BA to AC is as 1 is to the square root of 3, which latter cannot be given in an exact numerical measure, but is approximately 1.732. Now let us look at the correct general solution. There are many ways of arriving at the desired result, but the one I give is, I think, the simplest for beginners.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people think the following is the right solution to the problem. Using the letters in the diagram below, they claim that if you make the distance BA one-third of BC, and thus the area of rectangle ABE equal to that of the triangular remainder, the card must hang with the long side horizontal. Readers might recall the joke from Charles II, who got the Royal Society to meet and discuss why the water in a vessel doesn’t rise when you put a live fish in it; but during the meeting, one of the lesser-known members quietly stepped out and tested it, discovering that the water *did* rise! If my correspondents had similarly tried it with a piece of cardboard, they would have quickly realized their mistake. Area is one thing, but gravity is a whole different issue. The triangle extending its leg out to D needs to be balanced with extra area in the rectangle. Actually, the ratio of BA to AC is 1 to the square root of 3, which can’t be expressed as an exact number but is roughly 1.732. Now let’s look at the correct general solution. There are many ways to reach the desired result, but I think the one I provide is the simplest for beginners.

Fix your card on a piece of paper and draw the equilateral triangle BCF, BF and CF being equal to BC. Also mark off the point G so that DG shall equal DC. Draw the line CG and produce it until it cuts the line BF in H. If we now make HA parallel to BE, then A is the point from which our cut must be made to the corner D, as indicated by the dotted line.
Fix your card to a piece of paper and draw the equilateral triangle. Make sure sides BCF, BF, and CF are equal to BC. Also, mark point G so that DG equals DC. Draw line CG and extend it until it intersects line BF at point H. If we make HA parallel to BE, then point A is where we need to cut towards corner D, as shown by the dotted line.
A curious point in connection with this problem is the fact that the position of the point A is independent of the side CD. The reason for this is more obvious in the solution I have given than in any other method that I have seen, and (although the problem may be solved with all the working on the cardboard) that is partly why I have preferred it. It will be seen at once that however much you may reduce the width of the card by bringing E nearer to B and D nearer to C, the line CG, being the diagonal of a square, will always lie in the same direction, and will cut BF in H. Finally, if you wish to get an approximate measure for the distance BA, all you have to do is to multiply the length of the card by the decimal .366. Thus, if the card were 7 inches long, we get 7 × .366 = 2.562, or a little more than 2½ inches, for the distance from B to A.
A curious point related to this problem is that the position of point A doesn't depend on side CD. The reason for this is clearer in the solution I've provided than in any other method I've seen, and even though the problem can be solved with all the work done on the cardboard, that's partly why I've chosen it. It's immediately obvious that no matter how much you reduce the card's width by moving E closer to B and D closer to C, the line CG, which is the diagonal of a square, will always point in the same direction and intersect BF at H. Lastly, if you want to get an approximate measure for the distance BA, all you have to do is multiply the length of the card by the decimal .366. So, if the card is 7 inches long, we get 7 × .366 = 2.562, or a little over 2½ inches, for the distance from B to A.
But the real joke of the puzzle is this: We have seen that the position of the point A is independent of the width of the card, and depends entirely on the length. Now, in the illustration it will be found that both cards have the same length; consequently all the little maid had to do was to lay the clipped card on top of the other one and mark off the point A at precisely the same distance from the top left-hand corner! So, after all, Pappus' puzzle, as he presented it to his little maid, was quite an infantile problem, when he was able to show her how to perform the feat without first introducing her to the elements of statics and geometry.
But the real twist of the puzzle is this: We've seen that the position of point A doesn't depend on the width of the card; it relies entirely on the length. Now, in the illustration, both cards are the same length; so all the little girl had to do was place the clipped card on top of the other one and mark point A at exactly the same distance from the top left corner! So, in the end, Pappus' puzzle, as he presented it to his little girl, was quite a basic problem, considering he was able to show her how to solve it without first introducing her to the basics of statics and geometry.
Solvers of this little puzzle, I have generally found, may be roughly divided into two classes: those who get within a mile of the correct answer by means of more or less complex calcuPg 188lations, involving "pi," and those whose arithmetical kites fly hundreds and thousands of miles away from the truth. The comparatively easy method that I shall show does not involve any consideration of the ratio that the diameter of a circle bears to its circumference. I call it the "hat-box method."
Solvers of this little puzzle, I've generally found, can be roughly split into two groups: those who come pretty close to the right answer with somewhat complicated calculations involving "pi," and those whose math goes way off course, hundreds or even thousands of miles from the truth. The relatively simple method I’m going to demonstrate doesn’t require any consideration of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. I call it the "hat-box method."

Supposing we place our ball of wire, A, in a cylindrical hat-box, B, that exactly fits it, so that it touches the side all round and exactly touches the top and bottom, as shown in the illustration. Then, by an invariable law that should be known by everybody, that box contains exactly half as much again as the ball. Therefore, as the ball is 24 in. in diameter, a hat-box of the same circumference but two-thirds of the height (that is, 16 in. high) will have exactly the same contents as the ball.
Suppose we put our ball of wire, A, into a cylindrical hat box, B, that fits it perfectly, touching the sides all around and just touching the top and bottom, as illustrated. According to a law that everyone should be familiar with, that box holds exactly one and a half times the volume of the ball. So, since the ball is 24 inches in diameter, a hat box with the same circumference but two-thirds the height (which is 16 inches high) will have the same volume as the ball.
Now let us consider that this reduced hat-box is a cylinder of metal made up of an immense number of little wire cylinders close together like the hairs in a painter's brush. By the conditions of the puzzle we are allowed to consider that there are no spaces between the wires. How many of these cylinders one one-hundredth of an inch thick are equal to the large cylinder, which is 24 in. thick? Circles are to one another as the squares of their diameters. The square of 1/100 is 1/100000, and the square of 24 is 576; therefore the large cylinder contains 5,760,000 of the little wire cylinders. But we have seen that each of these wires is 16 in. long; hence 16 × 5,760,000 = 92,160,000 inches as the complete length of the wire. Reduce this to miles, and we get 1,454 miles 2,880 ft. as the length of the wire attached to the professor's kite.
Now let's think about this smaller hatbox as a metal cylinder made up of a huge number of tiny wire cylinders packed closely together like the bristles on a painter's brush. According to the rules of the puzzle, we can assume there are no gaps between the wires. How many of these cylinders, each one one-hundredth of an inch thick, would equal the larger cylinder, which is 24 inches thick? The area of circles relates to one another as the squares of their diameters. The square of 1/100 is 1/100000, and the square of 24 is 576; therefore, the large cylinder contains 5,760,000 of the small wire cylinders. But we've seen that each of these wires is 16 inches long; so 16 × 5,760,000 = 92,160,000 inches as the total length of the wire. Convert this to miles, and we get 1,454 miles and 2,880 feet as the length of the wire attached to the professor's kite.
Whether a kite would fly at such a height, or support such a weight, are questions that do not enter into the problem.
Whether a kite would fly at that height or support that weight are questions that don't factor into the problem.
Here is a general formula for solving this problem. Call the two sides of the rectangle a and b. Then
Here is a general formula for solving this problem. Call the two sides of the rectangle a and b. Then
( a + b - (a2 + b2 - ab)½ )/6
( a + b - ( a2 + b2 - ab )½ )/6
equals the side of the little square pieces to cut away. The measurements given were 8 ft. by 3 ft., and the above rule gives 8 in. as the side of the square pieces that have to be cut away. Of course it will not always come out exact, as in this case (on account of that square root), but you can get as near as you like with decimals.
equals the side of the small square pieces to cut away. The measurements provided were 8 ft. by 3 ft., and the rule above shows that 8 in. is the side of the square pieces that need to be cut away. Of course, it won’t always be exact, like in this case (because of that square root), but you can get as close as you want with decimals.
The simple rule is that the cone must be cut at one-third of its altitude.
The simple rule is that the cone should be cut at one-third of its height.
If you mark a point A on the circumference of a wheel that runs on the surface of a level road, like an ordinary cart-wheel, the curve described by that point will be a common cycloid, as in Fig. 1. But if you mark a point B on the circumference of the flange of a locomotive-wheel, the curve will be a curtate cycloid, as in Fig. 2, terminating in nodes. Now, if we consider one of these nodes or loops, we shall see that "at any given moment" certain points at the bottom of the loop must be moving in the opposite direction to the train. As there is an infinite number of such points on the flange's circumference, there must be an infinite number of these loops being described while the train is in motion. In fact, at any given moment certain points on the flanges are always moving in a direction opposite to that in which the train is going.
If you mark a point A on the edge of a wheel that rolls along a flat road, like a regular cart wheel, the path traced by that point will be a typical cycloid, as shown in Fig. 1. But if you mark a point B on the edge of a locomotive wheel, the path will be a curtate cycloid, as shown in Fig. 2, ending in nodes. Now, if we look at one of these nodes or loops, we can see that "at any given moment" certain points at the bottom of the loop must be moving in the opposite direction of the train. Since there are infinitely many such points on the edge of the flange, there must also be an infinite number of these loops being created while the train is moving. In fact, at any given moment, certain points on the flanges are always moving in a direction opposite to the train’s direction.

In the case of the two wheels, the wheel that runs round the stationary one makes two revolutions round its own centre. As both wheels are of the same size, it is obvious that if at the start we mark a point on the circumference of the upper wheel, at the very top, this point will be in contact with the lower wheel at its lowest part when half the journey has been made. Therefore this point is again at the top of the moving wheel, and one revolution has been made. Consequently there are two such revolutions in the complete journey.
In the case of the two wheels, the wheel that rotates around the stationary one makes two full turns around its own center. Since both wheels are the same size, it's clear that if we mark a point on the edge of the upper wheel at the top, this point will touch the lower wheel at the bottom when half the distance has been covered. As a result, this point will be back at the top of the moving wheel, meaning one full revolution has been completed. Therefore, there are two of these revolutions in the entire journey.
1. The easiest way is to arrange the eighteen matches as in Diagrams 1 and 2, making the length of the perpendicular AB equal to a match and a half. Then, if the matches are an inch in Pg 189length, Fig. 1 contains two square inches and Fig. 2 contains six square inches—4 × 1½. The second case (2) is a little more difficult to solve. The solution is given in Figs. 3 and 4. For the purpose of construction, place matches temporarily on the dotted lines. Then it will be seen that as 3 contains five equal equilateral triangles and 4 contains fifteen similar triangles, one figure is three times as large as the other, and exactly eighteen matches are used.
1. The easiest way is to arrange the eighteen matches as shown in Diagrams 1 and 2, making the length of the vertical line AB equal to a match and a half. If the matches are an inch long, Fig. 1 has two square inches and Fig. 2 has six square inches—4 x 1½. The second case (2) is a bit more challenging to solve. The solution is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. To help with the construction, place matches temporarily along the dotted lines. Then you’ll see that Fig. 3 has five equal equilateral triangles and Fig. 4 has fifteen similar triangles, so one figure is three times the size of the other, and exactly eighteen matches are used.


Place the twelve matches in the manner shown in the illustration, and you will have six pens of equal size.
Place the twelve matches as shown in the illustration, and you will create six pens of equal size.
There are various ways of building the ten castles so that they shall form five rows with four castles in every row, but the arrangement in the next column is the only one that also provides that two castles (the greatest number possible) shall not be approachable from the outside. It will be seen that you must cross the walls to reach these two.
There are different ways to arrange the ten castles so that they create five rows with four castles in each row, but the setup in the next column is the only one that ensures two castles (the maximum possible) cannot be accessed from the outside. You’ll notice that you have to cross the walls to get to these two.

There are several ways in which this problem might be solved were it not for the condition that as few cherries and plums as possible shall be planted on the north and east sides of the orchard. The best possible arrangement is that shown in the diagram, where the cherries, plums, and apples are indicated respectively by the letters C, P, and A. The dotted lines connect the cherries, and the other lines the plums. It will be seen that the ten cherry trees and the ten plum trees are so planted that each fruit forms five lines with four trees of its kind in line. This is the only arrangement that allows of so few as two cherries or plums being planted on the north and east outside rows.
There are several ways this problem could be solved, but it’s limited by the requirement to plant as few cherries and plums as possible on the north and east sides of the orchard. The best arrangement is shown in the diagram, where cherries, plums, and apples are represented by the letters C, P, and A, respectively. The dotted lines connect the cherries, and the solid lines connect the plums. You can see that the ten cherry trees and ten plum trees are planted in a way that each fruit type creates five lines with four trees of its kind in each line. This is the only setup that allows for as few as two cherries or plums to be planted in the outer rows on the north and east sides.


I give two pleasing arrangements of the trees. In each case there are twelve straight rows with five trees in every row.
I have two nice layouts for the trees. In both cases, there are twelve straight rows with five trees in each row.


The answer is that there are just 2,400 different ways. Any three coins may be taken from one side to combine with one coin taken from the other side. I give four examples on this and the next page. We may thus select three from the top in ten ways and one from the bottom in five ways, making fifty. But we may also select three from the bottom and one from the top in fifty ways. We may thus select the four coins in one hundred ways, and the four removed may be arranged by permutation in twenty-four ways. Thus there are 24 × 100 = 2,400 different solutions.
The answer is that there are exactly 2,400 different ways. You can take any three coins from one side to combine with one coin taken from the other side. I’ll give four examples of this on this and the next page. So, we can choose three from the top in ten different ways and one from the bottom in five ways, making a total of fifty. But we can also choose three from the bottom and one from the top in fifty ways. This means we can select the four coins in one hundred ways, and the four removed can be arranged in twenty-four different ways. Therefore, there are 24 × 100 = 2,400 different solutions.

As all the points and lines puzzles that I have given so far, excepting the last, are variations of the case of ten points arranged to form five lines of four, it will be well to consider this particular case generally. There are six fundamental solutions, and no more, as shown in the six diagrams. These, for the sake of convenience, I named some years ago the Star, the Dart, the Compasses, the Funnel, the Scissors, and the Nail. (See next page.) Readers will understand that any one of these forms may be distorted in an infinite number of different ways without destroying its real character.
As all the point and line puzzles I've shared so far, except for the last one, are variations of the case with ten points arranged to create five lines of four, it's a good idea to examine this specific case in general. There are six basic solutions, and no more, as illustrated in the six diagrams. For simplicity, I named these some years ago the Star, the Dart, the Compasses, the Funnel, the Scissors, and the Nail. (See next page.) Readers will understand that any of these shapes can be altered in countless ways without losing their essential character.
In "The King and the Castles" we have the Star, and its solution gives the Compasses. In the "Cherries and Plums" solution we find that the Cherries represent the Funnel and the Plums the Dart. The solution of the "Plantation Puzzle" is an example of the Dart distorted. Any solution to the "Ten Coins" will represent the Scissors. Thus examples of all have been given except the Nail.
In "The King and the Castles," we have the Star, and its solution gives the Compasses. In the "Cherries and Plums" solution, we see that the Cherries represent the Funnel and the Plums represent the Dart. The solution to the "Plantation Puzzle" is an example of a distorted Dart. Any solution to the "Ten Coins" will represent the Scissors. So far, examples of everything have been provided except for the Nail.

On a reduced chessboard, 7 by 7, we may place the ten pawns in just three different ways, but they must all represent the Dart. The "Plantation" shows one way, the Plums show a second way, and the reader may like to find the third way for himself. On an ordinary chessboard, 8 by 8, we can also get in a beautiful example of the Funnel—symmetrical in relation to the diagonal of the board. The smallest board that will take a Star is one 9 by 7. The Nail requires a board 11 by 7, the Scissors 11 by 9, and the Compasses 17 by 12. At least these are the best results recorded in my note-book. They may be beaten, but I do not think so. If you divide a chessboard into two parts by a diagonal zigzag line, so that the larger part contains 36 squares and the smaller part 28 squares, you can place three separate schemes on the larger part and one on the smaller part (all Darts) without their conflicting—that is, they occupy forty different squares. They can be placed in other ways without a division of the board. The smallest square board that will contain six different schemes (not fundamentally different), without any line of one scheme crossing the line of another, is 14 by 14; and the smallest board that will contain one scheme entirely enclosed within the lines of a second scheme, without any of the lines of the one, when drawn from point to point, crossing a line of the other, is 14 by 12.
On a smaller 7 by 7 chessboard, we can arrange the ten pawns in just three different ways, but they all have to represent the Dart. The "Plantation" shows one way, the Plums represent a second, and the reader can try to discover the third way on their own. On a standard 8 by 8 chessboard, we can also see a beautiful example of the Funnel, which is symmetrical to the diagonal of the board. The smallest board that will accommodate a Star is 9 by 7. The Nail needs an 11 by 7 board, the Scissors require 11 by 9, and the Compasses take up 17 by 12. At least, those are the best results I've noted. They could be surpassed, but I doubt it. If you split a chessboard into two sections with a diagonal zigzag line, where the larger part has 36 squares and the smaller part has 28 squares, you can fit three separate arrangements on the larger part and one on the smaller part (all Darts) without them interfering—that is, they cover forty different squares. They can also be arranged in other ways without dividing the board. The smallest square board that can fit six different arrangements (not fundamentally different), without any lines of one arrangement crossing lines of another, is 14 by 14; and the smallest board that can contain one arrangement entirely surrounded by the lines of a second arrangement, without any lines of the first crossing a line of the second when drawn from point to point, is 14 by 12.

If you ignore the four black pies in our illustration, the remaining twelve are in their original positions. Now remove the four detached pies to the places occupied by the black ones, and you will have your seven straight rows of four, as shown by the dotted lines.
If you overlook the four black pies in our illustration, the remaining twelve are in their original spots. Now move the four detached pies to the spots where the black ones were, and you'll have your seven straight rows of four, as indicated by the dotted lines.

The arrangement on the next page is the most symmetrical answer that can probably be found for twenty-one rows, which is, I believe, the greatest number of rows possible. There are several ways of doing it.
The layout on the next page is likely the most symmetrical solution you can find for twenty-one rows, which I think is the maximum number of rows possible. There are multiple ways to achieve this.

The main point is to discover the smallest possible number of Russians that there could have been. As the enemy opened fire from all directions, it is clearly necessary to find what is the smallest number of heads that could form sixteen lines with three heads in every line. Note that I say sixteen, and not thirty-two, because every line taken by a bullet may be also taken by another bullet fired in exactly the opposite direction. Now, as few as eleven points, or heads, may be arranged to form the required sixteen lines of three, but the discovery of this arrangement is a hard nut. The diagramPg 192 at the foot of this page will show exactly how the thing is to be done.
The main point is to find the smallest possible number of Russians that could exist. As the enemy fired from all sides, we clearly need to determine the least number of heads that could create sixteen lines with three heads in each line. Keep in mind that I mention sixteen, not thirty-two, because each line hit by a bullet could also be hit by another bullet fired in the exact opposite direction. Now, it turns out that as few as eleven points, or heads, can be arranged to form the required sixteen lines of three, but figuring out this arrangement is quite challenging. The diagramPg 192 at the bottom of this page will show exactly how this is done.

If, therefore, eleven Russians were in the positions shown by the stars, and the thirty-two Turks in the positions indicated by the black dots, it will be seen, by the lines shown, that each Turk may fire exactly over the heads of three Russians. But as each bullet kills a man, it is essential that every Turk shall shoot one of his comrades and be shot by him in turn; otherwise we should have to provide extra Russians to be shot, which would be destructive of the correct solution of our problem. As the firing was simultaneous, this point presents no difficulties. The answer we thus see is that there were at least eleven Russians amongst whom there was no casualty, and that all the thirty-two Turks were shot by one another. It was not stated whether the Russians fired any shots, but it will be evident that even if they did their firing could not have been effective: for if one of their bullets killed a Turk, then we have immediately to provide another man for one of the Turkish bullets to kill; and as the Turks were known to be thirty-two in number, this Pg 193would necessitate our introducing another Russian soldier and, of course, destroying the solution. I repeat that the difficulty of the puzzle consists in finding how to arrange eleven points so that they shall form sixteen lines of three. I am told that the possibility of doing this was first discovered by the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson some twenty years ago.
If eleven Russians were in the positions shown by the stars, and the thirty-two Turks were in the positions indicated by the black dots, we can see from the lines that each Turk can fire exactly over the heads of three Russians. But since each bullet kills a man, it's crucial that every Turk shoots one of his fellow Turks and is shot by him in return; otherwise, we would need extra Russians to be shot, which would complicate our solution. Since the firing was simultaneous, this point isn't a problem. The conclusion is that at least eleven Russians survived, and all thirty-two Turks shot each other. It wasn't mentioned whether the Russians fired any shots, but it's clear that if they did, their shots couldn't have been effective: if one of their bullets killed a Turk, we immediately need another man for one of the Turkish bullets to kill; and since there were known to be thirty-two Turks, this would mean we’d have to add another Russian soldier, which would nullify the solution. I reiterate that the challenge of the puzzle lies in figuring out how to arrange eleven points to create sixteen lines of three. I’ve been told that the possibility of doing this was first discovered by Rev. Mr. Wilkinson about twenty years ago.
Move the frogs in the following order: 2, 4, 6, 5, 3, 1 (repeat these moves in the same order twice more), 2, 4, 6. This is a solution in twenty-one moves—the fewest possible.
Move the frogs in this order: 2, 4, 6, 5, 3, 1 (repeat these moves in the same order two more times), 2, 4, 6. This is the solution in twenty-one moves—the least possible.
If n, the number of frogs, be even, we require (n²+n)/2 moves, of which (n²-n)/2 will be leaps and n simple moves. If n be odd, we shall need ((n²+3n)/2)-4 moves, of which (n²-n)/2 will be leaps and 2n-4 simple moves.
If n, the number of frogs, is even, we need (n²+n)/2 moves, where (n²-n)/2 will be leaps and n will be simple moves. If n is odd, we'll need ((n²+3n)/2)-4 moves, with (n²-n)/2 being leaps and 2n-4 simple moves.
In the even cases write, for the moves, all the even numbers in ascending order and the odd numbers in descending order. This series must be repeated ½n times and followed by the even numbers in ascending order once only. Thus the solution for 14 frogs will be (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1) repeated 7 times and followed by 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 = 105 moves.
In the even cases, list all the even numbers in ascending order and the odd numbers in descending order. This series should be repeated ½n times and then followed by the even numbers in ascending order just once. So, the solution for 14 frogs will be (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1) repeated 7 times and then followed by 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 = 105 moves.
In the odd cases, write the even numbers in ascending order and the odd numbers in descending order, repeat this series ½(n-1) times, follow with the even numbers in ascending order (omitting n-1), the odd numbers in descending order (omitting 1), and conclude with all the numbers (odd and even) in their natural order (omitting 1 and n). Thus for 11 frogs: (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1) repeated 5 times, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = 73 moves.
In the odd cases, write the even numbers in ascending order and the odd numbers in descending order, repeat this series ½(n-1) times, followed by the even numbers in ascending order (omitting n-1), the odd numbers in descending order (omitting 1), and finish with all the numbers (odd and even) in their natural order (omitting 1 and n). So, for 11 frogs: (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1) repeated 5 times, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = 73 moves.
This complete general solution is published here for the first time.
This complete general solution is being published here for the first time.
Move the counters in the following order. The moves in brackets are to be made four times in succession. 12, 1, 3, 2, 12, 11, 1, 3, 2 (5, 7, 9, 10, 8, 6, 4), 3, 2, 12, 11, 2, 1, 2. The grasshoppers will then be reversed in forty-four moves.
Move the counters in this order. The moves in parentheses should be done four times in a row. 12, 1, 3, 2, 12, 11, 1, 3, 2 (5, 7, 9, 10, 8, 6, 4), 3, 2, 12, 11, 2, 1, 2. The grasshoppers will then be reversed in forty-four moves.
The general solution of this problem is very difficult. Of course it can always be solved by the method given in the solution of the last puzzle, if we have no desire to use the fewest possible moves. But to employ a full economy of moves we have two main points to consider. There are always what I call a lower movement (L) and an upper movement (U). L consists in exchanging certain of the highest numbers, such as 12, 11, 10 in our "Grasshopper Puzzle," with certain of the lower numbers, 1, 2, 3; the former moving in a clockwise direction, the latter in a non-clockwise direction. U consists in reversing the intermediate counters. In the above solution for 12, it will be seen that 12, 11, and 1, 2, 3 are engaged in the L movement, and 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in the U movement. The L movement needs 16 moves and U 28, making together 44. We might also involve 10 in the L movement, which would result in L 23, U 21, making also together 44 moves. These I call the first and second methods. But any other scheme will entail an increase of moves. You always get these two methods (of equal economy) for odd or even counters, but the point is to determine just how many to involve in L and how many in U. Here is the solution in table form. But first note, in giving values to n, that 2, 3, and 4 counters are special cases, requiring respectively 3, 3, and 6 moves, and that 5 and 6 counters do not give a minimum solution by the second method—only by the first.
The general solution to this problem is quite challenging. It can always be solved using the method from the previous puzzle solution, but that doesn't minimize the number of moves. To use the fewest moves possible, we need to focus on two main concepts. There are what I refer to as a lower movement (L) and an upper movement (U). The L movement involves swapping some of the highest numbers, like 12, 11, and 10 in our "Grasshopper Puzzle," with some of the lower numbers, 1, 2, and 3; the higher numbers move in a clockwise direction, while the lower numbers move in a counterclockwise direction. The U movement involves reversing the positions of the middle counters. In the solution for 12, you can see that 12, 11, and 1, 2, 3 are part of the L movement, while 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are in the U movement. The L movement requires 16 moves and the U movement needs 28, totaling 44 moves. We could also include 10 in the L movement, which would change it to L 23 and U 21, still totaling 44 moves. I refer to these as the first and second methods. Any other arrangement will result in more moves. You can always find these two methods (each with the same efficiency) for odd or even counters, but the key is to decide how many should be included in L and how many in U. Here’s the solution in table format. But first, note that for values of n, 2, 3, and 4 counters are special cases that require 3, 3, and 6 moves respectively, and 5 and 6 counters only reach a minimum solution using the first method—not the second.
FIRST METHOD.
Total No. of Counters. | L MOVEMENT. | U MOVEMENT. | Total No. of Moves. | ||
No. of Counters. | No. of Moves. | No. of Counters. | No. of Moves. | ||
4n | n - 1 and n | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 7 | 2n + 1 | 2n² + 3n + 1 | 4(n² + n - 1) |
4n - 2 | n - 1 " n | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 7 | 2n - 1 | 2(n - 1)² + 3n - 2 | 4n² - 5 |
4n + 1 | n " n + 1 | 2n² + 5n - 2 | 2n | 2n² + 3n - 4 | 2(2n² + 4n - 3) |
4n - 1 | n - 1 " n | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 7 | 2n | 2n² + 3n - 4 | 4n² + 4n - 9 |
SECOND METHOD.
Total No. of Counters. | L MOVEMENT. | U MOVEMENT. | Total No. of Moves. | ||
No. of Counters. | No. of Moves. | No. of Counters. | No. of Moves. | ||
4n | n and n | 2n² + 3n - 4 | 2n | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 2 | 4(n² + n - 1) |
4n - 2 | n - 1 " n - 1 | 2(n - 1)² + 3n - 7 | 2n | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 2 | 4n² - 5 |
4n + 1 | n " n | 2n² + 3n - 4 | 2n + 1 | 2n² + 5n - 2 | 2(2n² + 4n - 3) |
4n - 1 | n " n | 2n² + 3n - 4 | 2n - 1 | 2(n - 1)² + 5n - 7 | 4n² + 4n-9 |
Pg 194More generally we may say that with m counters, where m is even and greater than 4, we require (m² + 4m - 16)/4 moves; and where m is odd and greater than 3, (m² + 6m - 31)/4 moves. I have thus shown the reader how to find the minimum number of moves for any case, and the character and direction of the moves. I will leave him to discover for himself how the actual order of moves is to be determined. This is a hard nut, and requires careful adjustment of the L and the U movements, so that they may be mutually accommodating.
Pg 194In general, we can say that with m counters, where m is even and greater than 4, we need (m² + 4m - 16)/4 moves; and when m is odd and greater than 3, we need (m² + 6m - 31)/4 moves. I've shown you how to find the minimum number of moves for any situation, along with the nature and direction of those moves. I'll leave it to you to figure out the actual order in which the moves should be made. This is a tough problem and requires careful adjustment of the L and U movements so they can work well together.
The following leaps solve the puzzle in ten moves: 2 to 1, 5 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 3, 7 to 6, 4 to 7, 1 to 4, 3 to 1, 6 to 3, 7 to 6.
The following moves solve the puzzle in ten steps: 2 to 1, 5 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 3, 7 to 6, 4 to 7, 1 to 4, 3 to 1, 6 to 3, 7 to 6.
Play the counters in the following order: K C E K W T C E H M K W T A N C E H M I K C E H M T, and there you are, at Twickenham. The position itself will always determine whether you are to make a leap or a simple move.
Play the pieces in this order: K C E K W T C E H M K W T A N C E H M I K C E H M T, and there you are, at Twickenham. The situation will always dictate if you should take a leap or just make a simple move.
In solving this puzzle there were two things to be achieved: first, so to manipulate the counters that the word VICTORIA should read round the cross in the same direction, only with the V on one of the dark arms; and secondly, to perform the feat in the fewest possible moves. Now, as a matter of fact, it would be impossible to perform the first part in any way whatever if all the letters of the word were different; but as there are two I's, it can be done by making these letters change places—that is, the first I changes from the 2nd place to the 7th, and the second I from the 7th place to the 2nd. But the point I referred to, when introducing the puzzle, as a little remarkable is this: that a solution in twenty-two moves is obtainable by moving the letters in the order of the following words: "A VICTOR! A VICTOR! A VICTOR I!"
In solving this puzzle, there were two goals to achieve: first, to arrange the counters so that the word VICTORIA reads around the cross in the same direction, with the V on one of the dark arms; and second, to complete this task in the fewest moves possible. In fact, the first part couldn't be done at all if all the letters of the word were different; however, since there are two I's, it can be accomplished by swapping these letters—meaning the first I moves from the 2nd position to the 7th, and the second I goes from the 7th position to the 2nd. But the point I mentioned when introducing the puzzle, which is a bit interesting, is this: a solution in twenty-two moves can be achieved by moving the letters in the order of these words: "A VICTOR! A VICTOR! A VICTOR I!"
There are, however, just six solutions in eighteen moves, and the following is one of them: I (1), V, A, I (2), R, O, T, I (1), I (2), A, V, I (2), I (1), C, I (2), V, A, I (1). The first and second I in the word are distinguished by the numbers 1 and 2.
There are, however, only six solutions in eighteen moves, and one of them is as follows: I (1), V, A, I (2), R, O, T, I (1), I (2), A, V, I (2), I (1), C, I (2), V, A, I (1). The first and second I in the word are indicated by the numbers 1 and 2.
It will be noticed that in the first solution given above one of the I's never moves, though the movements of the other letters cause it to change its relative position. There is another peculiarity I may point out—that there is a solution in twenty-eight moves requiring no letter to move to the central division except the I's. I may also mention that, in each of the solutions in eighteen moves, the letters C, T, O, R move once only, while the second I always moves four times, the V always being transferred to the right arm of the cross.
It will be noted that in the first solution provided above, one of the I's never moves, although the movements of the other letters cause it to change its relative position. There's another interesting detail to highlight—there’s a solution in twenty-eight moves that requires no letter to move to the central division except for the I's. Additionally, in each of the solutions with eighteen moves, the letters C, T, O, and R each move only once, while the second I always moves four times, with the V always being shifted to the right arm of the cross.
This puzzle can be solved in 23 moves—the fewest possible. Move the blocks in the following order: A, B, F, E, C, A, B, F, E, C, A, B, D, H, G, A, B, D, H, G, D, E, F.
This puzzle can be solved in 23 moves—the least amount needed. Move the blocks in this order: A, B, F, E, C, A, B, F, E, C, A, B, D, H, G, A, B, D, H, G, D, E, F.
The shortest possible way is to move the articles in the following order: Piano, bookcase, wardrobe, piano, cabinet, chest of drawers, piano, wardrobe, bookcase, cabinet, wardrobe, piano, chest of drawers, wardrobe, cabinet, bookcase, piano. Thus seventeen removals are necessary. The landlady could then move chest of drawers, wardrobe, and cabinet. Mr. Dobson did not mind the wardrobe and chest of drawers changing rooms so long as he secured the piano.
The quickest way is to move the items in this order: piano, bookcase, wardrobe, piano, cabinet, chest of drawers, piano, wardrobe, bookcase, cabinet, wardrobe, piano, chest of drawers, wardrobe, cabinet, bookcase, piano. So, a total of seventeen moves are needed. The landlady could then move the chest of drawers, wardrobe, and cabinet. Mr. Dobson was okay with the wardrobe and chest of drawers switching rooms as long as he got the piano.
The solution to the Eight Engines Puzzle is as follows: The engine that has had its fire drawn and therefore cannot move is No. 5. Move the other engines in the following order: 7, 6, 3, 7, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 3, 8, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, seventeen moves in all, leaving the eight engines in the required order.
The solution to the Eight Engines Puzzle is as follows: The engine that has had its fire taken out and therefore can't move is No. 5. Move the other engines in this order: 7, 6, 3, 7, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 3, 8, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, for a total of seventeen moves, leaving the eight engines in the required order.
There are two other slightly different solutions.
There are two other slightly different solutions.
This little puzzle may be solved in as few as nine moves. Play the engines as follows: From 9 to 10, from 6 to 9, from 5 to 6, from 2 to 5, from 1 to 2, from 7 to 1, from 8 to 7, from 9 to 8, and from 10 to 9. You will then have engines A, B, and C on each of the three circles and on each of the three straight lines. This is the shortest solution that is possible.
This little puzzle can be solved in as few as nine moves. Move the engines like this: from 9 to 10, from 6 to 9, from 5 to 6, from 2 to 5, from 1 to 2, from 7 to 1, from 8 to 7, from 9 to 8, and from 10 to 9. You will then have engines A, B, and C on each of the three circles and on each of the three straight lines. This is the shortest solution possible.

Only six reversals are necessary. The white train (from A to D) is divided into three sections, engine and 7 wagons, 8 wagons, and 1 wagon. The black train (D to A) never uncouples anything throughout. Fig. 1 is original position Pg 195with 8 and 1 uncoupled. The black train proceeds to position in Fig. 2 (no reversal). The engine and 7 proceed towards D, and black train backs, leaves 8 on loop, and takes up position in Fig. 3 (first reversal). Black train goes to position in Fig. 4 to fetch single wagon (second reversal). Black train pushes 8 off loop and leaves single wagon there, proceeding on its journey, as in Fig. 5 (third and fourth reversals). White train now backs on to loop to pick up single car and goes right away to D (fifth and sixth reversals).
Only six reversals are needed. The white train (from A to D) is split into three sections: the engine with 7 wagons, 8 wagons, and 1 wagon. The black train (D to A) never uncouples anything at all. Fig. 1 shows the original position Pg 195 with 8 and 1 uncoupled. The black train moves to the position in Fig. 2 (no reversal). The engine and 7 wagons head towards D, while the black train backs up, leaves 8 on the loop, and takes the position in Fig. 3 (first reversal). The black train goes to the position in Fig. 4 to get the single wagon (second reversal). The black train pushes 8 off the loop and leaves the single wagon there, continuing on its journey, as shown in Fig. 5 (third and fourth reversals). The white train now backs onto the loop to pick up the single car and heads straight to D (fifth and sixth reversals).
The exchange of cars can be made in forty-three moves, as follows: 6-G, 2-B, 1-E, 3-H, 4-I, 3-L, 6-K, 4-G, 1-I, 2-J, 5-H, 4-A, 7-F, 8-E, 4-D, 8-C, 7-A, 8-G, 5-C, 2-B, 1-E, 8-I, 1-G, 2-J, 7-H, 1-A, 7-G, 2-B, 6-E, 3-H, 8-L, 3-I, 7-K, 3-G, 6-I, 2-J, 5-H, 3-C, 5-G, 2-B, 6-E, 5-I, 6-J. Of course, "6-G" means that the car numbered "6" moves to the point "G." There are other ways in forty-three moves.
The exchange of cars can be done in forty-three moves, as follows: 6-G, 2-B, 1-E, 3-H, 4-I, 3-L, 6-K, 4-G, 1-I, 2-J, 5-H, 4-A, 7-F, 8-E, 4-D, 8-C, 7-A, 8-G, 5-C, 2-B, 1-E, 8-I, 1-G, 2-J, 7-H, 1-A, 7-G, 2-B, 6-E, 3-H, 8-L, 3-I, 7-K, 3-G, 6-I, 2-J, 5-H, 3-C, 5-G, 2-B, 6-E, 5-I, 6-J. Of course, "6-G" means that the car numbered "6" moves to the point "G." There are other ways to do it in forty-three moves.

It will be seen in the illustration how the prisoners may be arranged so as to produce as many as sixteen even rows. There are 4 such vertical rows, 4 horizontal rows, 5 diagonal rows in one direction, and 3 diagonal rows in the other direction. The arrows here show the movements of the four prisoners, and it will be seen that the infirm man in the bottom corner has not been moved.
It will be clear in the illustration how the prisoners can be set up to create as many as sixteen even rows. There are 4 vertical rows, 4 horizontal rows, 5 diagonal rows in one direction, and 3 diagonal rows in the other direction. The arrows here show the movements of the four prisoners, and you can see that the sick man in the bottom corner has not been moved.
In order to place words round the circle under the conditions, it is necessary to select words in which letters are repeated in certain relative positions. Thus, the word that solves our puzzle is "Swansea," in which the first and fifth letters are the same, and the third and seventh the same. We make out jumps as follows, taking the letters of the word in their proper order: 2-5, 7-2, 4-7, 1-4, 6-1, 3-6, 8-3. Or we could place a word like "Tarapur" (in which the second and fourth letters, and the third and seventh, are alike) with these moves: 6-1, 7-4, 2-7, 5-2, 8-5, 3-6, 8-3. But "Swansea" is the only word, apparently, that will fulfil the conditions of the puzzle.
To arrange words around the circle according to the conditions, we need to choose words where letters are repeated in specific positions. So, the word that solves our puzzle is "Swansea," which has the same first and fifth letters, and the same third and seventh letters. We can make the following moves, using the letters of the word in the correct order: 2-5, 7-2, 4-7, 1-4, 6-1, 3-6, 8-3. Alternatively, we could use a word like "Tarapur" (where the second and fourth letters, as well as the third and seventh, are the same) with these moves: 6-1, 7-4, 2-7, 5-2, 8-5, 3-6, 8-3. However, "Swansea" seems to be the only word that meets the puzzle's conditions.
This puzzle should be compared with Sharp's Puzzle, referred to in my solution to No. 341, "The Four Frogs." The condition "touch and jump over two" is identical with "touch and move along a line."
This puzzle should be compared with Sharp's Puzzle, mentioned in my solution to No. 341, "The Four Frogs." The condition "touch and jump over two" is the same as "touch and move along a line."
Here is a solution in nineteen moves; the moves enclosed in brackets count as one move only: 19-17, 16-18, (29-17, 17-19), 30-18, 27-25, (22-24, 24-26), 31-23, (4-16, 16-28), 7-9, 10-8, 12-10, 3-11, 18-6, (1-3, 3-11), (13-27, 27-25), (21-7, 7-9), (33-31, 31-23), (10-8, 8-22, 22-24, 24-26, 26-12, 12-10), 5-17. All the counters are now removed except one, which is left in the central hole. The solution needs judgment, as one is tempted to make several jumps in one move, where it would be the reverse of good play. For example, after playing the first 3-11 above, one is inclined to increase the length of the move by continuing with 11-25, 25-27, or with 11-9, 9-7.
Here’s a solution in nineteen moves; the moves in brackets count as one move only: 19-17, 16-18, (29-17, 17-19), 30-18, 27-25, (22-24, 24-26), 31-23, (4-16, 16-28), 7-9, 10-8, 12-10, 3-11, 18-6, (1-3, 3-11), (13-27, 27-25), (21-7, 7-9), (33-31, 31-23), (10-8, 8-22, 22-24, 24-26, 26-12, 12-10), 5-17. All the pieces are now removed except one, which is left in the center hole. The solution requires judgment, as there’s a temptation to make multiple jumps in one move, which would be the opposite of good play. For instance, after making the first 3-11 above, one might be tempted to extend the move by continuing with 11-25, 25-27, or with 11-9, 9-7.
I do not think the number of moves can be reduced.
I don’t think we can cut down the number of moves.
Number the plates (1, 2, 3, 4), (5, 6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11, 12), (13, 14, 15, 16) in successive rows from the top to the bottom. Then transfer the apple from 8 to 10 and play as follows, always removing the apple jumped over: 9-11, 1-9, 13-5, 16-8, 4-12, 12-10, 3-1, 1-9, 9-11.
Number the plates (1, 2, 3, 4), (5, 6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11, 12), (13, 14, 15, 16) in order from top to bottom. Then move the apple from 8 to 10 and continue playing as follows, always removing the apple that was jumped over: 9-11, 1-9, 13-5, 16-8, 4-12, 12-10, 3-1, 1-9, 9-11.
This puzzle may be solved in as few as four moves, in the following manner: Move 5 over 8, 9, 3, 1. Move 7 over 4. Move 6 over 2 and 7. Move 5 over 6, and all the counters are removed except 5, which is left in the central square that it originally occupied.
This puzzle can be solved in just four moves like this: Move 5 over 8, 9, 3, 1. Move 7 over 4. Move 6 over 2 and 7. Finally, move 5 over 6, and all the pieces are gone except for 5, which stays in the center square it started in.
Here is one of several solutions. Move 12 to 3, 7 to 4, 10 to 6, 8 to 1, 9 to 5, 11 to 2.
Here is one of several solutions. Move 12 to 3, 7 to 4, 10 to 6, 8 to 1, 9 to 5, 11 to 2.
Number the plates from 1 to 12 in the order that the boy is seen to be going in the illustration. Starting from 1, proceed as follows, where "1 to 4" means that you take the coin from plate No. 1 and transfer it to plate No. 4: 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12, 3 to 6, 7 to 10, 11 to 2, and complete the last revolution to 1, making three revolutions in all. Or you can proceed this way: 4 to 7, 8 to 11, 12 to 3, 2 to 5, 6 to 9, 10 to 1. It is easy to solve in four revolutions, but the solutions in three are more difficult to discover.
Number the plates from 1 to 12 in the order the boy is seen moving in the illustration. Starting from 1, do the following, where "1 to 4" means you take the coin from plate No. 1 and move it to plate No. 4: 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12, 3 to 6, 7 to 10, 11 to 2, and finish the last loop back to 1, making a total of three rotations. Alternatively, you can do it this way: 4 to 7, 8 to 11, 12 to 3, 2 to 5, 6 to 9, 10 to 1. It’s easy to solve in four rotations, but finding the solutions in three is trickier.
This is "The Riddle of the Fishpond" (No. 41, Canterbury Puzzles) in a different dress.
This is "The Riddle of the Fishpond" (No. 41, Canterbury Puzzles) in a new format.
In order that the cat should eat every thirteenth mouse, and the white mouse last of all, it is necessary that the count should begin at the seventh mouse (calling the white one the first)—that is, at the one nearest the tip of the cat's tail. In this case it is not at all necessary to try starting at all the mice in turn until you come to the right one, for you can just start anywhere and note how far distant the last one eaten is from the starting point. You will find it to be the eighth, and therefore must start at the eighth, counting backwards from the white mouse. This is the one I have indicated.
To make sure the cat eats every thirteenth mouse, with the white mouse being the last, you need to start counting from the seventh mouse (considering the white one as the first)—which is the one closest to the tip of the cat's tail. You don't need to try counting from each mouse one by one until you reach the right one; you can just start anywhere and see how far away the last mouse eaten is from where you began. You’ll find it’s the eighth, so you need to start at the eighth mouse and count backwards from the white mouse. This is the one I've pointed out.
In the case of the second puzzle, where you have to find the smallest number with which the cat may start at the white mouse and eat this one last of all, unless you have mastered the general solution of the problem, which is very difficult, there is no better course open to you than to try every number in succession until you come to one that works correctly. The smallest number is twenty-one. If you have to proceed by trial, you will shorten your labour a great deal by only counting out the remainders when the number is divided successively by 13, 12, 11, 10, etc. Thus, in the case of 21, we have the remainders 8, 9, 10, 1, 3, 5, 7, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1. Note that I do not give the remainders of 7, 3, and 1 as nought, but as 7, 3, and 1. Now, count round each of these numbers in turn, and you will find that the white mouse is killed last of all. Of course, if we wanted simply any number, not the smallest, the solution is very easy, for we merely take the least common multiple of 13, 12, 11, 10, etc. down to 2. This is 360360, and you will find that the first count kills the thirteenth mouse, the next the twelfth, the next the eleventh, and so on down to the first. But the most arithmetically inclined cat could not be expected to take such a big number when a small one like twenty-one would equally serve its purpose.
In the second puzzle, where you need to find the smallest number that allows the cat to start at the white mouse and eat it last, unless you've mastered the general solution—which is quite challenging—the best approach is to try each number one by one until you find one that works. The smallest number is twenty-one. If you're going to work by trial and error, you can save yourself a lot of effort by only considering the remainders when the number is divided by 13, 12, 11, 10, etc. For example, with 21, the remainders are 8, 9, 10, 1, 3, 5, 7, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1. Notice that I don't write the remainders of 7, 3, and 1 as zero, but as 7, 3, and 1. Now, if you count through each of these numbers, you'll see that the white mouse is the last one to be caught. Of course, if we only needed any number, not necessarily the smallest, the solution is much easier, because we just take the least common multiple of 13, 12, 11, 10, and so on down to 2. That number is 360360, and you'll find that the first count takes out the thirteenth mouse, the next the twelfth, the next the eleventh, and so on down to the first. But no math-savvy cat would realistically choose such a large number when a smaller one like twenty-one would work just as well.
In the third case, the smallest number is 100. The number 1,000 would also do, and there are just seventy-two other numbers between these that the cat might employ with equal success.
In the third case, the smallest number is 100. The number 1,000 would also work, and there are just seventy-two other numbers between these that the cat might use with equal success.
To leave the three piles at the extreme ends of the rows, the cheeses may be moved as follows—the numbers refer to the cheeses and not to their positions in the row: 7-2, 8-7, 9-8, 10-15, 6-10, 5-6, 14-16, 13-14, 12-13, 3-1, 4-3, 11-4. This is probably the easiest solution of all to find. To get three of the piles on cheeses 13, 14, and 15, play thus: 9-4, 10-9, 11-10, 6-14, 5-6, 12-15, 8-12, 7-8, 16-5, 3-13, 2-3, 1-2. To leave the piles on cheeses 3, 5, 12, and 14, play thus: 8-3, 9-14, 16-12, 1-5, 10-9, 7-10, 11-8, 2-1, 4-16, 13-2, 6-11, 15-4.
To leave the three piles at the far ends of the rows, the cheeses can be moved like this—the numbers refer to the cheeses, not their positions in the row: 7-2, 8-7, 9-8, 10-15, 6-10, 5-6, 14-16, 13-14, 12-13, 3-1, 4-3, 11-4. This is probably the easiest solution to find. To get three of the piles on cheeses 13, 14, and 15, do the following moves: 9-4, 10-9, 11-10, 6-14, 5-6, 12-15, 8-12, 7-8, 16-5, 3-13, 2-3, 1-2. To leave the piles on cheeses 3, 5, 12, and 14, use these moves: 8-3, 9-14, 16-12, 1-5, 10-9, 7-10, 11-8, 2-1, 4-16, 13-2, 6-11, 15-4.
Make the following exchanges of pairs: H-K, H-E, H-C, H-A, I-L, I-F, I-D, K-L, G-J, J-A, F-K, L-E, D-K, E-F, E-D, E-B, B-K. It will be found that, although the white counters can be moved to their proper places in 11 moves, if we omit all consideration of exchanges, yet the black cannot be so moved in fewer than 17 moves. So we have to introduce waste moves with the white counters to equal the minimum required by the black. Thus fewer than 17 moves must be impossible. Some of the moves are, of course, interchangeable.
Make the following exchanges of pairs: H-K, H-E, H-C, H-A, I-L, I-F, I-D, K-L, G-J, J-A, F-K, L-E, D-K, E-F, E-D, E-B, B-K. You'll see that while the white counters can be arranged into their correct positions in 11 moves without considering exchanges, the black counters can't be moved in fewer than 17 moves. Therefore, we have to add extra moves with the white counters to match the minimum needed for the black. This means fewer than 17 moves must be impossible. Some of the moves can be swapped, of course.

If the enemy's fleet be anchored in the formation shown in the illustration, it will be seen that as many as ten out of the sixteen ships may be blown up by discharging the torpedoes in the order indicated by the numbers and in the directions indicated by the arrows. As each torpedo in succession passes under three ships and sinks the fourth, strike out each vessel with the pencil as it is sunk.
If the enemy's fleet is anchored in the arrangement shown in the illustration, you can see that up to ten out of the sixteen ships can be destroyed by firing the torpedoes in the order indicated by the numbers and in the directions shown by the arrows. As each torpedo passes under three ships and sinks the fourth, cross out each vessel with a pencil as it is sunk.

I suggested that the reader should try this puzzle with counters, so I give my solution in that form. The silk hats are represented by black counters and the felt hats by white counters. The first row shows the hats in their original positions, and then each succesPg 197sive row shows how they appear after one of the five manipulations. It will thus be seen that we first move hats 2 and 3, then 7 and 8, then 4 and 5, then 10 and 11, and, finally, 1 and 2, leaving the four silk hats together, the four felt hats together, and the two vacant pegs at one end of the row. The first three pairs moved are dissimilar hats, the last two pairs being similar. There are other ways of solving the puzzle.
I suggested that the reader try this puzzle using counters, so I'm providing my solution in that format. The silk hats are shown as black counters and the felt hats as white counters. The first row displays the hats in their original positions, and each subsequent row shows how they look after one of the five moves. You'll see that we first move hats 2 and 3, then 7 and 8, then 4 and 5, then 10 and 11, and finally, 1 and 2, which leaves the four silk hats together, the four felt hats together, and the two empty pegs at one end of the row. The first three pairs moved are different hats, while the last two pairs are the same. There are other ways to solve the puzzle.
There are a good many different solutions to this puzzle. Any contiguous pair, except 7-8, may be moved first, and after the first move there are variations. The following solution shows the position from the start right through each successive move to the end:—
There are quite a few different solutions to this puzzle. Any adjacent pair, except for 7-8, can be moved first, and after the initial move, there are several variations. The following solution illustrates the position from the beginning through each subsequent move to the end:—
. | . | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | . | . | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 5 | . | . | 8 |
4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | . | . | 5 | 6 | 8 |
4 | . | . | 2 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
4 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | . | . |
Two of the pots, 13 and 19, were in their proper places. As every interchange may result in a pot being put in its place, it is clear that twenty-two interchanges will get them all in order. But this number of moves is not the fewest possible, the correct answer being seventeen. Exchange the following pairs: (3-1, 2-3), (15-4, 16-15), (17-7, 20-17), (24-10, 11-24, 12-11), (8-5, 6-8, 21-6, 23-21, 22-23, 14-22, 9-14, 18-9). When you have made the interchanges within any pair of brackets, all numbers within those brackets are in their places. There are five pairs of brackets, and 5 from 22 gives the number of changes required—17.
Two of the pots, 13 and 19, were in their correct positions. Since each swap can result in a pot being placed correctly, it's obvious that twenty-two swaps will get them all organized. However, that’s not the minimum number of moves possible; the right answer is seventeen. Swap the following pairs: (3-1, 2-3), (15-4, 16-15), (17-7, 20-17), (24-10, 11-24, 12-11), (8-5, 6-8, 21-6, 23-21, 22-23, 14-22, 9-14, 18-9). Once you make the swaps within any bracket, all the numbers inside those brackets will be in their correct places. There are five pairs of brackets, and subtracting 5 from 22 gives the number of changes needed—17.

As the conditions are generally understood, this puzzle is incapable of solution. This can be demonstrated quite easily. So we have to look for some catch or quibble in the statement of what we are asked to do. Now if you fold the paper and then push the point of your pencil down between the fold, you can with one stroke make the two lines CD and EF in our diagram. Then start at A, and describe the line ending at B. Finally put in the last line GH, and the thing is done strictly within the conditions, since folding the paper is not actually forbidden. Of course the lines are here left unjoined for the purpose of clearness.
As we generally understand it, this puzzle can't be solved. You can easily prove this. So we need to look for some trick or loophole in the instructions. If you fold the paper and then press the tip of your pencil down between the fold, you can make both lines CD and EF in our diagram with just one stroke. Then, start at A and draw the line ending at B. Finally, add the last line GH, and it's done entirely within the guidelines, since folding the paper isn't actually prohibited. Of course, the lines are left unconnected here for clarity.
In the rubbing out form of the puzzle, first rub out A to B with a single finger in one stroke. Then rub out the line GH with one finger. Finally, rub out the remaining two vertical lines with two fingers at once! That is the old trick.
In the erase version of the puzzle, first erase A to B with one finger in one go. Then erase the line GH with one finger. Finally, erase the last two vertical lines using two fingers at the same time! That's the classic trick.

There are just sixteen points (all on the outside) where three roads may be said to join. These are called by mathematicians "odd nodes." There is a rule that tells us that in the case of a drawing like the present one, where there are sixteen odd nodes, it requires eight separate strokes or routes (that is, half as many as there are odd nodes) to complete it. As we have to produce as much as possible with only one of these eight strokes, it is clearly necessary to contrive that the seven strokes from odd node to odd node shall be as short as possible. Start at A and end at B, or go the reverse way.
There are just sixteen points (all on the outside) where three roads meet. Mathematicians refer to these as "odd nodes." There's a rule that states that in a setup like this, with sixteen odd nodes, it takes eight separate strokes or routes (which is half the number of odd nodes) to finish it. Since we need to maximize what we can do with one of these eight strokes, it’s essential to arrange the seven strokes from odd node to odd node to be as short as possible. Start at A and end at B, or go the other way.

It can be done in twelve continuous strokes, thus: Start at A in the illustration, and eight Pg 198strokes, forming the star, will bring you back to A; then one stroke round the circle to B, one stroke to C, one round the circle to D, and one final stroke to E—twelve in all. Of course, in practice the second circular stroke will be over the first one; it is separated in the diagram, and the points of the star not joined to the circle, to make the solution clear to the eye.
It can be done in twelve continuous strokes like this: Start at A in the illustration, and make eight strokes to form the star, which will bring you back to A. Then, make one stroke around the circle to B, one stroke to C, one around the circle to D, and one final stroke to E—twelve in total. In practice, the second circular stroke will overlap the first one; it’s shown separately in the diagram, along with the points of the star that aren't connected to the circle, to make the solution clear.
The inspector need only travel nineteen miles if he starts at B and takes the following route: B A D G D E F I F C B E H K L I H G J K. Thus the only portions of line travelled over twice are the two sections D to G and F to I. Of course, the route may be varied, but it cannot be shortened.
The inspector only has to travel nineteen miles if he starts at B and follows this route: B A D G D E F I F C B E H K L I H G J K. So, the only parts of the line traveled over twice are the two sections from D to G and F to I. Of course, the route can be changed, but it can't be shortened.
Note that there are six towns, from which only two roads issue. Thus 1 must lie between 9 and 12 in the circular route. Mark these two roads as settled. Similarly mark 9, 5, 14, and 4, 8, 14, and 10, 6, 15, and 10, 2, 13, and 3, 7, 13. All these roads must be taken. Then you will find that he must go from 4 to 15, as 13 is closed, and that he is compelled to take 3, 11, 16, and also 16, 12. Thus, there is only one route, as follows: 1, 9, 5, 14, 8, 4, 15, 6, 10, 2, 13, 7, 3, 11, 16, 12, 1, or its reverse—reading the line the other way. Seven roads are not used.
Note that there are six towns, and only two roads connect them. So, town 1 must be located between towns 9 and 12 in the circular route. Mark these two roads as settled. Also, mark the connections between towns 9, 5, 14; 4, 8, 14; 10, 6, 15; 10, 2, 13; and 3, 7, 13. All these roads must be used. You will find that the route from 4 to 15 is necessary since 13 is closed, and he must take roads 3, 11, 16, and also 16 back to 12. Therefore, there is only one route: 1, 9, 5, 14, 8, 4, 15, 6, 10, 2, 13, 7, 3, 11, 16, 12, 1, or in reverse—reading the line backward. Seven roads are not utilized.

It will be seen from the illustration (where the roads not used are omitted) that the traveller can go as far as seventy miles in fifteen turnings. The turnings are all numbered in the order in which they are taken. It will be seen that he never visits nineteen of the towns. He might visit them all in fifteen turnings, never entering any town twice, and end at the black town from which he starts (see "The Rook's Tour," No. 320), but such a tour would only take him sixty-four miles.
From the illustration (where the unused roads are omitted), it's clear that a traveler can go up to seventy miles in fifteen turns. The turns are all numbered in the order they are taken. It shows that he never visits nineteen of the towns. He could visit all of them in fifteen turns, without entering any town twice, and end back at the starting black town (see "The Rook's Tour," No. 320), but that route would only take him sixty-four miles.

Though we cannot really see all the sides of the octahedron at once, we can make a projection of it that suits our purpose just as well. In the diagram the six points represent the six angles of the octahedron, and four lines proceed from every point under exactly the same conditions as the twelve edges of the solid. Therefore if we start at the point A and go over all the lines once, we must always end our route at A. And the number of different routes is just 1,488, counting the reverse way of any route as different. It would take too much space to show how I make the count. It can be done in about five minutes, but an explanation of the method is difficult. The reader is therefore asked to accept my answer as correct.
Although we can’t see all the sides of the octahedron at once, we can create a projection that serves our purpose just as well. In the diagram, the six points represent the six angles of the octahedron, and four lines extend from each point under the same conditions as the twelve edges of the solid. So, if we start at point A and traverse all the lines once, we will always end up back at A. The total number of different routes is 1,488, counting the reverse of any route as different. It would take too much space to show how I arrived at this count. It can be done in about five minutes, but explaining the method is challenging. Therefore, I ask the reader to accept my answer as correct.

There are thirty edges, of which eighteen were visible in the original illustration, represented Pg 199in the following diagram by the hexagon NAESGD. By this projection of the solid we get an imaginary view of the remaining twelve edges, and are able to see at once their direction and the twelve points at which all the edges meet. The difference in the length of the lines is of no importance; all we want is to present their direction in a graphic manner. But in case the novice should be puzzled at only finding nineteen triangles instead of the required twenty, I will point out that the apparently missing triangle is the outline HIK.
There are thirty edges, of which eighteen were visible in the original illustration, represented Pg 199in the following diagram by the hexagon NAESGD. This solid projection gives us a conceptual view of the remaining twelve edges, allowing us to see their direction and where all twelve edges connect. The differences in the lengths of the lines don’t matter; our goal is simply to show their direction visually. However, if a beginner is confused about why there are only nineteen triangles instead of the expected twenty, I want to clarify that the so-called missing triangle is the outline HIK.
In this case there are twelve odd nodes; therefore six distinct and disconnected routes will be needful if we are not to go over any lines twice. Let us therefore find the greatest distance that we may so travel in one route.
In this situation, there are twelve odd nodes; therefore, six separate and disconnected routes will be necessary if we don’t want to travel the same lines more than once. Let's determine the longest distance we can travel in a single route.
It will be noticed that I have struck out with little cross strokes five lines or edges in the diagram. These five lines may be struck out anywhere so long as they do not join one another, and so long as one of them does not connect with N, the North Pole, from which we are to start. It will be seen that the result of striking out these five lines is that all the nodes are now even except N and S. Consequently if we begin at N and stop at S we may go over all the lines, except the five crossed out, without traversing any line twice. There are many ways of doing this. Here is one route: N to H, I, K, S, I, E, S, G, K, D, H, A, N, B, A, E, F, B, C, G, D, N, C, F, S. By thus making five of the routes as short as is possible—simply from one node to the next—we are able to get the greatest possible length for our sixth line. A greater distance in one route, without going over the same ground twice, it is not possible to get.
You'll notice that I've crossed out five lines in the diagram with little strokes. These five lines can be crossed out anywhere as long as they don't connect to each other and none of them connect to N, the North Pole, where we start. You can see that by crossing out these five lines, all the nodes are now even except for N and S. So if we start at N and end at S, we can traverse all the lines except the five crossed out, without going over any line twice. There are many ways to do this. Here’s one route: N to H, I, K, S, I, E, S, G, K, D, H, A, N, B, A, E, F, B, C, G, D, N, C, F, S. By making five of the routes as short as possible—just moving from one node to the next—we can achieve the longest possible length for our sixth line. It’s not possible to cover a greater distance in one route without retracing our steps.
It is now readily seen that those five erased lines must be gone over twice, and they may be "picked up," so to speak, at any points of our route. Thus, whenever the traveller happens to be at I he can run up to A and back before proceeding on his route, or he may wait until he is at A and then run down to I and back to A. And so with the other lines that have to be traced twice. It is, therefore, clear that he can go over 25 of the lines once only (25 × 10,000 miles = 250,000 miles) and 5 of the lines twice (5 × 20,000 miles = 100,000 miles), the total, 350,000 miles, being the length of his travels and the shortest distance that is possible in visiting the whole body.
It’s now clear that those five erased lines need to be covered twice, and they can be "picked up," so to speak, at any point along our route. So, whenever the traveler is at point I, he can quickly run over to A and back before continuing on his path, or he can wait until he’s at A and then go down to I and return to A. The same applies to the other lines that need to be traced twice. Therefore, it’s obvious that he can travel over 25 of the lines just once (25 × 10,000 miles = 250,000 miles) and 5 of the lines twice (5 × 20,000 miles = 100,000 miles), bringing the total to 350,000 miles, which is the total distance he travels and the shortest route possible for visiting the whole area.
It will be noticed that I have made him end his travels at S, the South Pole, but this is not imperative. I might have made him finish at any of the other nodes, except the one from which he started. Suppose it had been required to bring him home again to N at the end of his travels. Then instead of suppressing the line AI we might leave that open and close IS. This would enable him to complete his 350,000 miles tour at A, and another 10,000 miles would take him to his own fireside. There are a great many different routes, but as the lengths of the edges are all alike, one course is as good as another. To make the complete 350,000 miles tour from N to S absolutely clear to everybody, I will give it entire: N to H, I, A, I, K, H, K, S, I, E, S, G, F, G, K, D, C, D, H, A, N, B, E, B, A, E, F, B, C, G, D, N, C, F, S—that is, thirty-five lines of 10,000 miles each.
You’ll notice that I’ve made him end his travels at S, the South Pole, but that’s not mandatory. I could have had him finish at any of the other points, except the one he started from. If it was necessary to bring him back home to N at the end of his journey, instead of closing the line AI, we could keep it open and close IS. This would let him complete his 350,000-mile tour at A, and another 10,000 miles would take him to his own home. There are many different routes, but since the lengths of the edges are all the same, one route is just as good as another. To make the entire 350,000-mile journey from N to S perfectly clear to everyone, I'll provide it in full: N to H, I, A, I, K, H, K, S, I, E, S, G, F, G, K, D, C, D, H, A, N, B, E, B, A, E, F, B, C, G, D, N, C, F, S—that is, thirty-five lines of 10,000 miles each.
Starting from A, the inspector need only travel 36 furlongs if he takes the following route: A to B, G, H, C, D, I, H, M, N, I, J, O, N, S, R, M, L, G, F, K, L, Q, R, S, T, O, J, E, D, C, B, A, F, K, P, Q. He thus passes between A and B twice, between C and D twice, between F and K twice, between J and O twice, and between R and S twice—five repetitions. Therefore 31 passages plus 5 repeated equal 36 furlongs. The little pitfall in this puzzle lies in the fact that we start from an even node. Otherwise we need only travel 35 furlongs.
Starting from A, the inspector only needs to travel 36 furlongs if he follows this route: A to B, G, H, C, D, I, H, M, N, I, J, O, N, S, R, M, L, G, F, K, L, Q, R, S, T, O, J, E, D, C, B, A, F, K, P, Q. He goes between A and B twice, between C and D twice, between F and K twice, between J and O twice, and between R and S twice—making five repetitions in total. So, 31 passages plus 5 repeated equals 36 furlongs. The small catch in this puzzle is that we start from an even node. Otherwise, we would only need to travel 35 furlongs.
When Mr. Maggs replied, "No way, I'm sure," he was not saying that the thing was impossible, but was really giving the actual route by which the problem can be solved. Starting from the star, if you visit the towns in the order, NO WAY, I'M SURE, you will visit every town once, and only once, and end at E. So both men were correct. This was the little joke of the puzzle, which is not by any means difficult.
When Mr. Maggs replied, "No way, I'm sure," he wasn't claiming that the situation was impossible but was actually describing the way to solve the problem. Starting from the star, if you visit the towns in the order, NO WAY, I'M SURE, you'll visit each town once and only once, finishing at E. So both men were right. This was the little twist of the puzzle, which isn’t difficult at all.

There are only four different routes (or eight, if we count the reverse ways) by which the sailor can start at the island marked A, visit all the islands once, and once only, and return again to A. Here they are:—
There are only four different routes (or eight, if we consider the reverse paths) by which the sailor can set off from the island marked A, visit all the islands once, and only once, and then return to A. Here they are:—
Now, if the sailor takes the first route he will make C his 12th island (counting A as 1); by the second route he will make C his 13th island; by the third route, his 16th island; and by the fourth route, his 17th island. If he goes the reverse way, C will be respectively his 10th, 9th, 6th, and 5th island. As these are the only possible routes, it is evident that if the sailor puts off his visit to C as long as possible, he must take the last route reading from left to right. This route I show by the dark lines in the diagram, and it is the correct answer to the puzzle.
Now, if the sailor takes the first route, he will make C his 12th island (counting A as 1); by the second route, he will make C his 13th island; by the third route, his 16th island; and by the fourth route, his 17th island. If he goes in reverse, C will be his 10th, 9th, 6th, and 5th island, respectively. Since these are the only possible routes, it's clear that if the sailor delays his visit to C as much as he can, he needs to take the last route reading from left to right. This route is shown by the dark lines in the diagram, and it is the correct answer to the puzzle.
The map may be greatly simplified by the "buttons and string" method, explained in the solution to No. 341, "The Four Frogs."
The map can be significantly simplified using the "buttons and string" method, as explained in the solution to No. 341, "The Four Frogs."
The first thing to do in trying to solve a puzzle like this is to attempt to simplify it. If you look at Fig. 1, you will see that it is a simplified version of the map. Imagine the circular towns to be buttons and the railways to be connecting strings. (See solution to No. 341.) Then, it will be seen, we have simply "straightened out" the previous diagram without affecting the conditions. Now we can further simplify by converting Fig. 1 into Fig. 2, which is a portion of a chessboard. Here the directions of the railways will resemble the moves of a rook in chess—that is, we may move in any direction parallel to the sides of the diagram, but not diagonally. Therefore the first town (or square) visited must be a black one; the second must be a white; the third must be a black; and so on. Every odd square visited will thus be black and every even one white. Now, we have 23 squares to visit (an odd number), so the last square visited must be black. But Z happens to be white, so the puzzle would seem to be impossible of solution.
The first step in tackling a puzzle like this is to try to simplify it. If you look at Fig. 1, you'll see that it's a simpler version of the map. Think of the circular towns as buttons and the railways as connecting strings. (See solution to No. 341.) Now, we’ve basically "straightened out" the previous diagram without changing the conditions. We can simplify even more by turning Fig. 1 into Fig. 2, which shows part of a chessboard. In this version, the railway directions will mimic the moves of a rook in chess—that is, we can move in any direction parallel to the sides of the diagram, but not diagonally. So the first town (or square) we visit must be a black one; the second must be a white one; the third must be black, and so on. Every odd square will therefore be black, and every even square will be white. Since we have 23 squares to visit (an odd number), the last square we visit must be black. However, Z happens to be white, making the puzzle seem unsolvable.

As we were told that the man "succeeded" in carrying put his plan, we must try to find some loophole in the conditions. He was to "enter every town once and only once," and we find no prohibition against his entering once the town A after leaving it, especially as he has never left it since he was born, and would thus be "entering" it for the first time in his life. But he must return at once from the first town he visits, and then he will have only 22 towns to visit, and as 22 is an even number, there is no reason why he should not end on the white square Z. A possible route for him is indicated by the dotted line from A to Z. This route is repeated by the dark lines in Fig. 1, and the reader will now have no difficulty in applying; it to the original map. We have thus proved that the puzzle can only be solved by a return to A immediately after leaving it.
As we learned that the man "succeeded" in carrying out his plan, we need to look for a loophole in the conditions. He was to "enter every town once and only once," and we see no rule against him re-entering town A after leaving it, especially since he has never left it in his life, meaning he would be "entering" it for the first time. However, he must return immediately from the first town he visits, leaving him with only 22 towns to visit. Since 22 is an even number, there's no reason he can't finish on the white square Z. One possible route for him is shown by the dotted line from A to Z. This route is again shown by the dark lines in Fig. 1, and the reader should have no trouble applying this to the original map. We've thus demonstrated that the puzzle can only be solved by returning to A right after leaving it.

According to the conditions, in the strict sense in which one at first understands them, therePg 201is no possible solution to this puzzle. In such a dilemma one always has to look for some verbal quibble or trick. If the owner of house A will allow the water company to run their pipe for house C through his property (and we are not bound to assume that he would object), then the difficulty is got over, as shown in our illustration. It will be seen that the dotted line from W to C passes through house A, but no pipe ever crosses another pipe.
According to the conditions, in the strict sense in which one initially interprets them, therePg 201is no possible solution to this puzzle. In such a dilemma, one always has to search for some verbal trick or loophole. If the owner of house A allows the water company to run their pipe for house C through his property (and we’re not required to assume that he would object), then the issue is resolved, as shown in our illustration. It can be seen that the dotted line from W to C goes through house A, but no pipe ever crosses another pipe.

The routes taken by the eight drivers are shown in the illustration, where the dotted line roads are omitted to make the paths clearer to the eye.
The paths taken by the eight drivers are shown in the illustration, where the dotted line roads are removed to make the routes easier to see.
The simplest way is to write in the number of routes to all the towns in this manner. Put a 1 on all the towns in the top row and in the first column. Then the number of routes to any town will be the sum of the routes to the town immediately above and to the town immediately to the left. Thus the routes in the second row will be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., in the third row, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, etc.; and so on with the other rows. It will then be seen that the only town to which there are exactly 1,365 different routes is the twelfth town in the fifth row—the one immediately over the letter E. This town was therefore the cyclist's destination.
The easiest way is to write down the number of routes to all the towns like this. Write a 1 for all the towns in the top row and the first column. Then, the number of routes to any town will be the sum of the routes to the town directly above it and the town directly to the left. So, the routes in the second row will be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on. In the third row, it'll be 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, etc.; and this pattern continues in the other rows. It will then be clear that the only town with exactly 1,365 different routes is the twelfth town in the fifth row—the one directly above the letter E. This town was, therefore, the cyclist's destination.
The general formula for the number of routes from one corner to the corner diagonally opposite on any such rectangular reticulated arrangement, under the conditions as to direction, is (m + n)!/m!n!, where m is the number of towns on one side, less one, and n the number on the other side, less one. Our solution involves the case where there are 12 towns by 5. Therefore m = 11 and n = 4. Then the formula gives us the answer 1,365 as above.
The general formula for the number of routes from one corner to the corner diagonally opposite in any rectangular grid layout, considering direction, is (m + n)!/m!n!, where m is the number of towns on one side, minus one, and n is the number on the other side, minus one. Our solution is based on the case where there are 12 towns by 5. So m = 11 and n = 4. Using the formula, we get the answer 1,365 as mentioned above.
First of all I will ask the reader to compare the original square diagram with the circular one shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 below. If for the moment we ignore the shading (the purpose of which I shall proceed to explain), we find that the circular diagram in each case is merely a simplification of the original square one—that is, the roads from A lead to B, E, and M in both cases, the roads from L (London) lead to I, K, and S, and so on. The form below, being circular and symmetrical, answers my purpose better in applying a mechanical solution, and I therefore adopt it without altering in any way the conditions of the puzzle. If such a question as distances from town to town came into the problem, the new diagrams might require the addition of numbers to indicate these distances, or they might conceivably not be at all practicable.
First, I’d like you to compare the original square diagram with the circular one shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 below. If we temporarily overlook the shading (which I’ll explain shortly), we can see that the circular diagram is just a simplified version of the original square one—in both cases, the routes from A lead to B, E, and M, and the routes from L (London) lead to I, K, and S, and so on. The circular and symmetrical design works better for my mechanical solution, so I’ll use it without changing any of the puzzle’s conditions. If distances between towns were part of the problem, we might need to add numbers to show those distances, or it could turn out that those additions aren’t feasible at all.

Now, I draw the three circular diagrams, as shown, on a sheet of paper and then cut out three pieces of cardboard of the forms indicated by the shaded parts of these diagrams. It can be shown that every route, if marked out with a red pencil, will form one or other of the designs indicated by the edges of the cards, or a reflection thereof. Let us direct our attention to Fig. 1. Here the card is so placed that the star is at the town T; it therefore gives us (by following the edge of the card) one of the circular routes from London: L, S, R, T, M, A, E, P, O, J, D, C, B, G, N, Q, K, H, F, I, L. If we went the other way, we should get L, I, F, H, K, Q, etc., but these reverse routes were not to be counted. When we have written out this first route we revolve the card until the Pg 202star is at M, when we get another different route, at A a third route, at E a fourth route, and at P a fifth route. We have thus obtained five different routes by revolving the card as it lies. But it is evident that if we now take up the card and replace it with the other side uppermost, we shall in the same manner get five other routes by revolution.
Now, I draw the three circular diagrams, as shown, on a sheet of paper and then cut out three pieces of cardboard in the shapes indicated by the shaded parts of these diagrams. It can be demonstrated that every route, if marked out with a red pencil, will form one of the designs indicated by the edges of the cards, or a reflection of it. Let’s focus on Fig. 1. Here, the card is positioned so that the star is at town T; it gives us (by following the edge of the card) one of the circular routes from London: L, S, R, T, M, A, E, P, O, J, D, C, B, G, N, Q, K, H, F, I, L. If we went the other way, we would get L, I, F, H, K, Q, etc., but these reverse routes were not to be included. After writing this first route, we rotate the card until the Pg 202star is at M, giving us another different route, at A a third route, at E a fourth route, and at P a fifth route. We have thus obtained five different routes by rotating the card as it is. However, it’s clear that if we take up the card and flip it to the other side, we will similarly get five more routes by rotation.
We therefore see how, by using the revolving card in Fig. 1, we may, without any difficulty, at once write out ten routes. And if we employ the cards in Figs. 2 and 3, we similarly obtain in each case ten other routes. These thirty routes are all that are possible. I do not give the actual proof that the three cards exhaust all the possible cases, but leave the reader to reason that out for himself. If he works out any route at haphazard, he will certainly find that it falls into one or other of the three categories.
We can see how, by using the rotating card in Fig. 1, we can easily write out ten routes at once. If we use the cards in Figs. 2 and 3, we get another ten routes each time. These thirty routes are all that are possible. I won't provide the actual proof that the three cards cover all possible cases, but I'll let the reader figure it out on their own. If they randomly work out any route, they will definitely find that it fits into one of the three categories.
Let us confine our attention to the L in the top left-hand corner. Suppose we go by way of the E on the right: we must then go straight on to the V, from which letter the word may be completed in four ways, for there are four E's available through which we may reach an L. There are therefore four ways of reading through the right-hand E. It is also clear that there must be the same number of ways through the E that is immediately below our starting point. That makes eight. If, however, we take the third route through the E on the diagonal, we then have the option of any one of the three V's, by means of each of which we may complete the word in four ways. We can therefore spell LEVEL in twelve ways through the diagonal E. Twelve added to eight gives twenty readings, all emanating from the L in the top left-hand corner; and as the four corners are equal, the answer must be four times twenty, or eighty different ways.
Let’s focus on the L in the top left corner. If we go through the E on the right, we have to go straight to the V, and from that letter, we can finish the word in four different ways, since there are four E's we can use to get to an L. That means there are four ways to read through the right E. It’s also obvious that there are the same number of ways through the E that’s directly below our starting point. That adds up to eight. However, if we take the third route through the diagonal E, we can choose from any of the three V's, and with each of those, we can complete the word in four different ways. So, we can spell LEVEL in twelve ways using the diagonal E. Twelve plus eight gives us twenty readings, all starting from the L in the top left corner; and since all four corners are the same, the total must be four times twenty, which is eighty different ways.
There are 252 different ways. The general formula is that, for words of n letters (not palindromes, as in the case of the next puzzle), when grouped in this manner, there are always 2(n+1) - 4 different readings. This does not allow diagonal readings, such as you would get if you used instead such a word as DIGGING, where it would be possible to pass from one G to another G by a diagonal step.
There are 252 different ways. The general formula is that, for words of n letters (not palindromes, like in the next puzzle), when grouped this way, there are always 2(n+1) - 4 different readings. This does not include diagonal readings, like you would have with a word like DIGGING, where it's possible to move from one G to another G diagonally.
The correct answer is 1,992 different ways. Every F is either a corner F or a side F—standing next to a corner in its own square of F's. Now, FIED may be read from a corner F in 16 ways; therefore DEIF may be read into a corner F also in 16 ways; hence DEIFIED may be read through a corner F in 16 × 16 = 256 ways. Consequently, the four corner F's give 4 × 256 = 1,024 ways. Then FIED may be read from a side F in 11 ways, and DEIFIED therefore in 121 ways. But there are eight side F's; consequently these give together 8 × 121 = 968 ways. Add 968 to 1,024 and we get the answer, 1,992.
The correct answer is 1,992 different ways. Every F is either a corner F or a side F—next to a corner in its own square of F's. Now, FIED can be read from a corner F in 16 ways; therefore, DEIF can be read into a corner F also in 16 ways; thus, DEIFIED can be read through a corner F in 16 × 16 = 256 ways. Consequently, the four corner F's provide 4 × 256 = 1,024 ways. Then, FIED can be read from a side F in 11 ways, and DEIFIED therefore in 121 ways. But there are eight side F's; so these together give 8 × 121 = 968 ways. Add 968 to 1,024 and we get the answer, 1,992.
In this form the solution will depend on whether the number of letters in the palindrome be odd or even. For example, if you apply the word NUN in precisely the same manner, you will get 64 different readings; but if you use the word NOON, you will only get 56, because you cannot use the same letter twice in immediate succession (since you must "always pass from one letter to another") or diagonal readings, and every reading must involve the use of the central N.
In this way, the solution will depend on whether the number of letters in the palindrome is odd or even. For instance, if you apply the word NUN in exactly the same way, you'll get 64 different readings; but if you use the word NOON, you'll only get 56, because you can't use the same letter twice in a row (since you must "always move from one letter to another") or use diagonal readings, and every reading must include the central N.
The reader may like to find for himself the general formula in this case, which is complex and difficult. I will merely add that for such a case as MADAM, dealt with in the same way as DEIFIED, the number of readings is 400.
The reader might want to figure out the general formula for this situation, which is complicated and challenging. I’ll just add that for a case like MADAM, analyzed in the same way as DEIFIED, the number of readings is 400.
THE number of readings here is 63,504, as in the case of "WAS IT A RAT I SAW" (No. 30, Canterbury Puzzles). The general formula is that for palindromic sentences containing 2n + 1 letters there are [4(2n - 1)]² readings.
THE number of readings here is 63,504, like in the case of "WAS IT A RAT I SAW" (No. 30, Canterbury Puzzles). The general formula is that for palindromic sentences containing 2n + 1 letters, there are [4(2n - 1)]² readings.
Starting from any one of the N's, there are 17 different readings of NAH, or 68 (4 times 17) for the 4 N's. Therefore there are also 68 ways of spelling HAN. If we were allowed to use the same N twice in a spelling, the answer would be 68 times 68, or 4,624 ways. But the conditions were, "always passing from one letter to another." Therefore, for every one of the 17 ways of spelling HAN with a particular N, there would be 51 ways (3 times 17) of completing the NAH, or 867 (17 times 51) ways for the complete word. Hence, as there are four N's to use in HAN, the correct solution of the puzzle is 3,468 (4 times 867) different ways.
Starting from any one of the N's, there are 17 different ways to read NAH, or 68 (4 times 17) for the 4 N's. So, there are also 68 ways to spell HAN. If we were allowed to use the same N twice in a spelling, the answer would be 68 times 68, which is 4,624 ways. But the conditions were, "always moving from one letter to another." Therefore, for each of the 17 ways to spell HAN with a specific N, there would be 51 ways (3 times 17) to complete the NAH, resulting in 867 (17 times 51) ways for the whole word. Thus, since there are four N's to use in HAN, the correct answer to the puzzle is 3,468 (4 times 867) different ways.
The required proverb is, "There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip." Start at the T on the outside at the bottom right-hand corner, pass to the H above it, and the rest is easy.
The proverb needed is, "There are many things that can go wrong between the cup and the lip." Start at the T on the outside at the bottom right corner, move to the H above it, and the rest is simple.

The problem of the Bridges may be reduced to the simple diagram shown in illustration. The Pg 203point M represents the Monk, the point I the Island, and the point Y the Monastery. Now the only direct ways from M to I are by the bridges a and b; the only direct ways from I to Y are by the bridges c and d; and there is a direct way from M to Y by the bridge e. Now, what we have to do is to count all the routes that will lead from M to Y, passing over all the bridges, a, b, c, d, and e once and once only. With the simple diagram under the eye it is quite easy, without any elaborate rule, to count these routes methodically. Thus, starting from a, b, we find there are only two ways of completing the route; with a, c, there are only two routes; with a, d, only two routes; and so on. It will be found that there are sixteen such routes in all, as in the following list:—
The Bridges problem can be simplified to the basic diagram shown in the illustration. The Pg 203point M represents the Monk, point I the Island, and point Y the Monastery. The only direct routes from M to I are the bridges a and b; the only direct routes from I to Y are the bridges c and d; and there’s a direct route from M to Y via bridge e. What we need to do is count all the routes from M to Y, using each bridge—a, b, c, d, and e—exactly once. Looking at the simple diagram, it’s easy to methodically count these routes without any complicated rules. Starting with a and b, we see there are only two ways to finish the route; with a, c, there are also only two routes; with a and d, we again find just two routes; and so forth. In total, there are sixteen such routes, as listed below:—
a b e c d |
a b e d c |
a c d b e |
a c e b d |
a d e b c |
a d c b e |
b a e c d |
b a e d c |
b c d a e |
b c e a d |
b d c a e |
b d e a c |
e c a b d |
e c b a d |
e d a b c |
e d b a c |
If the reader will transfer the letters indicating the bridges from the diagram to the corresponding bridges in the original illustration, everything will be quite obvious.
If the reader transfers the letters marking the bridges from the diagram to the matching bridges in the original illustration, everything will be clear.
If we read the exact words of the writer in the cyclopædia, we find that we are not told that the pens were all necessarily empty! In fact, if the reader will refer back to the illustration, he will see that one sheep is already in one of the pens. It was just at this point that the wily farmer said to me, "Now I'm going to start placing the fifteen sheep." He thereupon proceeded to drive three from his flock into the already occupied pen, and then placed four sheep in each of the other three pens. "There," says he, "you have seen me place fifteen sheep in four pens so that there shall be the same number of sheep in every pen." I was, of course, forced to admit that he was perfectly correct, according to the exact wording of the question.
If we look at the exact words of the writer in the encyclopedia, we see that it doesn’t say the pens had to be empty! In fact, if you refer back to the illustration, you'll notice that one sheep is already in one of the pens. At that moment, the clever farmer said to me, "Now I'm going to start putting the fifteen sheep." He then drove three from his flock into the already filled pen and added four sheep to each of the other three pens. "There," he said, "you've seen me place fifteen sheep in four pens so that there’s the same number in each pen." I had to admit that he was completely right, based on the exact wording of the question.
On the second evening King Arthur arranged the knights and himself in the following order round the table: A, F, B, D, G, E, C. On the third evening they sat thus, A, E, B, G, C, F, D. He thus had B next but one to him on both occasions (the nearest possible), and G was the third from him at both sittings (the furthest position possible). No other way of sitting the knights would have been so satisfactory.
On the second evening, King Arthur arranged the knights and himself in this order around the table: A, F, B, D, G, E, C. On the third evening, they sat like this: A, E, B, G, C, F, D. This way, B was next to him on both occasions (the closest possible), and G was the third from him at both dinners (the furthest position possible). No other arrangement of the knights would have been so satisfactory.
The men may be grouped as follows, where each line represents a day and each column a table:—
The men can be grouped like this, where each line stands for a day and each column represents a table:—
AB | CD | EF | GH | IJ | KL |
AE | DL | GK | FI | CB | HJ |
AG | LJ | FH | KC | DE | IB |
AF | JB | KI | HD | LG | CE |
AK | BE | HC | IL | JF | DG |
AH | EG | ID | CJ | BK | LF |
AI | GF | CL | DB | EH | JK |
AC | FK | DJ | LE | GI | BH |
AD | KH | LB | JG | FC | EI |
AL | HI | JE | BF | KD | GC |
AJ | IC | BG | EK | HL | FD |
Note that in every column (except in the case of the A's) all the letters descend cyclically in the same order, B, E, G, F, up to J, which is followed by B.
Note that in every column (except for the A's) all the letters cycle in the same order: B, E, G, F, up to J, which is then followed by B.
In the following solution each of the eleven lines represents a sitting, each column a table, and each pair of letters a pair of partners.
In the following solution, each of the eleven lines stands for a sitting, each column represents a table, and each pair of letters indicates a pair of partners.
A B — I L | E J — G K | F H — C D |
A C — J B | F K — H L | G I — D E |
A D — K C | G L — I B | H J — E F |
A E — L D | H B — J C | I K — F G |
A F — B E | I C — K D | J L — G H |
A G — C F | J D — L E | K B — H I |
A H — D G | K E — B F | L C — I J |
A I — E H | L F — C G | B D — J K |
A J — F I | B G — D H | C E — K L |
A K — G J | C H — E I | D F — L B |
A L — H K | D I — F J | E G — B C |
It will be seen that the letters B, C, D ...L descend cyclically. The solution given above is absolutely perfect in all respects. It will be found that every player has every other player once as his partner and twice as his opponent.
It will be seen that the letters B, C, D ...L descend in a cycle. The solution provided above is flawless in every way. It will be noted that each player has every other player once as a partner and twice as an opponent.
Call the men A, B, D, E, and their wives a, b, d, e. Then they may play as follows without any person ever playing twice with or against any other person:—
Call the men A, B, D, E, and their wives a, b, d, e. Then they may play as follows without anyone ever playing twice with or against any other person:—
First Court. | Second Court. | |
1st Day | A d against B e | D a against E b |
2nd Day | A e against D b | E a against B d |
3rd Day | A b against E d | B a against D e |
It will be seen that no man ever plays with or against his own wife—an ideal arrangement. If the reader wants a hard puzzle, let him try to arrange eight married couples (in four courts on seven days) under exactly similar conditions. It can be done, but I leave the reader in this case the pleasure of seeking the answer and the general solution.
It’s clear that no one ever competes with or against their own spouse—what a perfect setup. If you're looking for a challenging puzzle, try organizing eight married couples (across four courts over seven days) under exactly the same conditions. It can be done, but I’ll let you enjoy finding the answer and the overall solution.
The number of different ways in which eight persons, with eight hats, can each take the wrong hat, is 14,833.
The number of different ways for eight people to each grab the wrong hat from eight hats is 14,833.
Here are the successive solutions for any number of persons from one to eight:—
Here are the step-by-step solutions for any number of people from one to eight:—
1 = 0
2 = 1
3 = 2
4 = 9
5 = 44
6 = 265
7 = 1,854
8 = 14,833
1 = 0
2 equals 1
3 is 2
4 = 9
5 = 44
6 = 265
7 = 1,854
8 = 14,833
To get these numbers, multiply successively by 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. When the multiplier is even, add 1; when odd, deduct 1. Thus, 3 × 1 - 1 = 2, 4 × 2 + 1 = 9; 5 × 9 - 1 = 44; and so on. Or you can multiply the sum of the number of ways for n-1 and n-2 persons by n-1, and so get the solution for n persons. Thus, 4(2 + 9) = 44; 5(9 + 44) = 265; and so on.
To get these numbers, multiply successively by 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. When the multiplier is even, add 1; when it's odd, subtract 1. So, 3 × 1 - 1 = 2, 4 × 2 + 1 = 9; 5 × 9 - 1 = 44; and so on. Alternatively, you can multiply the sum of the number of ways for n-1 and n-2 people by n-1 to get the solution for n people. So, 4(2 + 9) = 44; 5(9 + 44) = 265; and so on.
The bells should be rung as follows:—
The bells should be rung as follows:—
1 2 3 4 |
2 1 4 3 |
2 4 1 3 |
4 2 3 1 |
4 3 2 1 |
3 4 1 2 |
3 1 4 2 |
1 3 2 4 |
3 1 2 4 |
1 3 4 2 |
1 4 3 2 |
4 1 2 3 |
4 2 1 3 |
2 4 3 1 |
2 3 4 1 |
3 2 1 4 |
2 3 1 4 |
3 2 4 1 |
3 4 2 1 |
4 3 1 2 |
4 1 3 2 |
1 4 2 3 |
1 2 4 3 |
2 1 3 4 |
I have constructed peals for five and six bells respectively, and a solution is possible for any number of bells under the conditions previously stated.
I have created ringing patterns for five and six bells, and a solution can be found for any number of bells as long as the previously mentioned conditions are met.
If there were no conditions whatever, except that the men were all to go out together, in threes, they could row in an immense number of different ways. If the reader wishes to know how many, the number is 4557. And with the condition that no two may ever be together more than once, there are no fewer than 15,567,552,000 different solutions—that is, different ways of arranging the men. With one solution before him, the reader will realize why this must be, for although, as an example, A must go out once with B and once with C, it does not necessarily follow that he must go out with C on the same occasion that he goes with B. He might take any other letter with him on that occasion, though the fact of his taking other than B would have its effect on the arrangement of the other triplets.
If there were absolutely no conditions, other than that the guys had to go out together in groups of three, they could row in a huge number of different ways. If you're curious about how many, the number is 4557. And with the condition that no two can ever be together more than once, there are at least 15,567,552,000 different solutions—meaning, different ways to arrange the men. Looking at one solution, you’ll see why this is the case. For example, A has to go out once with B and once with C, but that doesn’t mean he has to go out with C the same time he goes with B. He could take any other letter with him that time, although choosing someone other than B would impact the arrangement of the other triplet groups.
Of course only a certain number of all these arrangements are available when we have that other condition of using the smallest possible number of boats. As a matter of fact we need employ only ten different boats. Here is one the arrangements:—
Of course, only a limited number of all these arrangements are possible when we have the additional requirement of using the minimum number of boats. In fact, we only need to use ten different boats. Here's one of the arrangements:—
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1st Day | (ABC) | (DBF) | (GHI) | (JKL) | (MNO) |
8 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | |
2nd Day | (ADG) | (BKN) | (COL) | (JEI) | (MHF) |
3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | |
3rd Day | (AJM) | (BEH) | (CFI) | (DKO) | (GNL) |
7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 1 | |
4th Day | (AEK) | (CGM) | (BOI) | (DHL) | (JNF) |
4 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 2 | |
5th Day | (AHN) | (CDJ) | (BFL) | (GEO) | (MKI) |
6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 1 | |
6th Day | (AFO) | (BGJ) | (CKH) | (DNI) | (MEL) |
5 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 2 | |
7th Day | (AIL) | (BDM) | (CEN) | (GKF) | (JHO) |
It will be found that no two men ever go out twice together, and that no man ever goes out twice in the same boat.
It will be noticed that no two guys ever go out together more than once, and that no guy ever goes out in the same boat twice.
This is an extension of the well-known problem of the "Fifteen Schoolgirls," by Kirkman. The original conditions were simply that fifteen girls walked out on seven days in triplets without any girl ever walking twice in a triplet with another girl. Attempts at a general solution of this puzzle had exercised the ingenuity of mathematicians since 1850, when the question was first propounded, until recently. In 1908 and the two following years I indicated (see Educational Times Reprints, Vols. XIV., XV., and XVII.) that all our trouble had arisen from a failure to discover that 15 is a special case (too small to enter into the general law for all higher numbers of girls of the form 6n + 3), and showed what that general law is and how the groups should be posed for any number of girls. I gave actual arrangements for numbers that had previously baffled all attempts to manipulate, and the problem may now be considered generally solved. Readers will find an excellent full account of the puzzle in W.W. Rouse Ball's Mathematical Recreations, 5th edition.
This is an extension of the well-known problem of the "Fifteen Schoolgirls," by Kirkman. The original conditions were simply that fifteen girls went out for seven days in groups of three without any girl ever being in the same group with another girl more than once. Attempts to find a general solution to this puzzle have challenged mathematicians since 1850, when the question was first raised, up until recently. In 1908 and the two years that followed, I pointed out (see Educational Times Reprints, Vols. XIV., XV., and XVII.) that our challenges stemmed from a failure to recognize that 15 is a special case (too small to fit into the general rule for all higher numbers of girls of the form 6n + 3) and revealed what that general rule is and how the groups should be arranged for any number of girls. I provided actual arrangements for numbers that had previously puzzled all attempts to solve them, and the problem can now be considered generally resolved. Readers will find a comprehensive account of the puzzle in W.W. Rouse Ball's Mathematical Recreations, 5th edition.
There are, in all, sixteen balls to be broken, or sixteen places in the order of breaking. Call the four strings A, B, C, and D—order is here of no importance. The breaking of the balls on A may occupy any 4 out of these 16 places—that is, the combinations of 16 things, taken 4 together, will be
There are, in total, sixteen balls to be broken, or sixteen positions in the order of breaking. Call the four strings A, B, C, and D—order doesn't matter here. The breaking of the balls on A can take any 4 out of these 16 positions—that is, the combinations of 16 items, taken 4 at a time, will be
13 × 14 × 15 × 16 | = 1,820 |
1 × 2 × 3 × 4 |
ways for A. In every one of these cases B may occupy any 4 out of the remaining 12 places, making
ways for A. In each of these cases, B can take any 4 out of the other 12 spots, making
9 × 10 × 11 × 12 | = 495 |
1 × 2 × 3 × 4 |
ways. Thus 1,820 × 495 = 900,900 different placings are open to A and B. But for every one of these cases C may occupy
ways. Thus 1,820 × 495 = 900,900 different arrangements are available to A and B. But for each of these cases, C can occupy
5 × 6 × 7 × 8 | = 70 |
1 × 2 × 3 × 4 |
different places; so that 900,900 × 70 = 63,063,000 different placings are open to A, B, and C. In every one of these cases, D has no choice but to take the four places that remain. Therefore the correct answer is that the balls may be broken in 63,063,000 different ways under the conditions. Readers should compare this problem with No. 345, "The Two Pawns," which they will then know how to solve for cases where there are three, four, or more pawns on the board.
different places; so that 900,900 × 70 = 63,063,000 different arrangements are available to A, B, and C. In each of these cases, D has no option but to take the four remaining spots. Therefore, the correct answer is that the balls can be arranged in 63,063,000 different ways under the given conditions. Readers should compare this problem with No. 345, "The Two Pawns," which will help them understand how to solve similar scenarios involving three, four, or more pawns on the board.
Pg 205__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
The following will be found to comply with the conditions of grouping:—
The following meets the requirements for grouping:—
ALE | MET | MOP | BLM |
BAG | CAP | YOU | CLT |
IRE | OIL | LUG | LNR |
NAY | BIT | BUN | BPR |
AIM | BEY | RUM | GMY |
OAR | GIN | PLY | CGR |
PEG | ICY | TRY | CMN |
CUE | COB | TAU | PNT |
ONE | GOT | PIU |
The fifteen letters used are A, E, I, O, U, Y, and B, C, G, L, M, N, P, R, T. The number of words is 27, and these are all shown in the first three columns. The last word, PIU, is a musical term in common use; but although it has crept into some of our dictionaries, it is Italian, meaning "a little; slightly." The remaining twenty-six are good words. Of course a TAU-cross is a T-shaped cross, also called the cross of St. Anthony, and borne on a badge in the Bishop's Palace at Exeter. It is also a name for the toad-fish.
The fifteen letters used are A, E, I, O, U, Y, and B, C, G, L, M, N, P, R, T. There are 27 words, all displayed in the first three columns. The last word, PIU, is a musical term that's commonly used; although it’s included in some dictionaries, it’s Italian, meaning "a little; slightly." The other twenty-six are solid words. Of course, a TAU-cross is a T-shaped cross, also known as the cross of St. Anthony, which appears on a badge in the Bishop's Palace at Exeter. It’s also a name for the toadfish.
We thus have twenty-six good words and one doubtful, obtained under the required conditions, and I do not think it will be easy to improve on this answer. Of course we are not bound by dictionaries but by common usage. If we went by the dictionary only in a case of this kind, we should find ourselves involved in prefixes, contractions, and such absurdities as I.O.U., which Nuttall actually gives as a word.
We have twenty-six solid words and one questionable one, which we gathered under the right conditions, and I don't think it will be easy to do better than this. Of course, we should follow common usage rather than just dictionaries. If we relied solely on the dictionary in this case, we would end up dealing with prefixes, contractions, and things like I.O.U., which Nuttall actually lists as a word.
The boys can walk out as follows:—
The boys can walk out like this:—
1st Day. | 2nd Day. | 3rd Day. | 4th Day. | 5th Day. | 6th Day. |
A B C | B F H | F A G | A D H | G B I | D C A |
D E F | E I A | I D B | B E G | C F D | E H B |
G H I | C G D | H C E | F I C | H A E | I G F |
Every boy will then have walked by the side of every other boy once and once only.
Every boy will have walked alongside every other boy once and only once.
Dealing with the problem generally, 12n + 9 boys may walk out in triplets under the conditions on 9n + 6 days, where n may be nought or any integer. Every possible pair will occur once. Call the number of boys m. Then every boy will pair m - 1 times, of which (m - 1)/4 times he will be in the middle of a triplet and (m - 1)/2 times on the outside. Thus, if we refer to the solution above, we find that every boy is in the middle twice (making 4 pairs) and four times on the outside (making the remaining 4 pairs of his 8). The reader may now like to try his hand at solving the two next cases of 21 boys on 15 days, and 33 boys on 24 days. It is, perhaps, interesting to note that a school of 489 boys could thus walk out daily in one leap year, but it would take 731 girls (referred to in the solution to No. 269) to perform their particular feat by a daily walk in a year of 365 days.
Dealing with the problem overall, 12n + 9 boys can walk out in groups of three over a span of 9n + 6 days, where n can be zero or any integer. Each possible pair will occur once. Let's call the number of boys m. Then every boy will pair m - 1 times, with (m - 1)/4 of those times he will be in the middle of a triplet and (m - 1)/2 times on the outside. Thus, according to the solution provided above, we find that every boy is in the middle twice (making 4 pairs) and four times on the outside (making the remaining 4 pairs out of his total of 8). The reader might now want to try solving the next two cases of 21 boys over 15 days and 33 boys over 24 days. It’s interesting to note that a school of 489 boys could walk out daily in one leap year, but it would take 731 girls (mentioned in the solution to No. 269) to accomplish their specific feat with a daily walk in a year of 365 days.
The history of this problem will be found in The Canterbury Puzzles (No. 90). Since the publication of that book in 1907, so far as I know, nobody has succeeded in solving the case for that unlucky number of persons, 13, seated at a table on 66 occasions. A solution is possible for any number of persons, and I have recorded schedules for every number up to 25 persons inclusive and for 33. But as I know a good many mathematicians are still considering the case of 13, I will not at this stage rob them of the pleasure of solving it by showing the answer. But I will now display the solutions for all the cases up to 12 persons inclusive. Some of these solutions are now published for the first time, and they may afford useful clues to investigators.
The history of this problem can be found in The Canterbury Puzzles (No. 90). Since that book was published in 1907, as far as I know, no one has managed to solve the case for the unlucky number of 13 people seated at a table on 66 occasions. A solution is possible for any number of people, and I've recorded schedules for every number up to 25 people, including 33. However, since I know many mathematicians are still looking into the case of 13, I won’t spoil their fun by giving away the answer just yet. Instead, I'll present the solutions for all cases up to 12 people, some of which are being published for the first time, and these may provide useful insights for researchers.
The solution for the case of 3 persons seated on 1 occasion needs no remark.
The solution for the situation of 3 people seated at 1 time needs no comment.
A solution for the case of 4 persons on 3 occasions is as follows:—
A solution for the situation of 4 people on 3 occasions is as follows:—
1 2 3 4 |
1 3 4 2 |
1 4 2 3 |
Each line represents the order for a sitting, and the person represented by the last number in a line must, of course, be regarded as sitting next to the first person in the same line, when placed at the round table.
Each line shows the seating arrangement, and the individual indicated by the last number in a line must be considered as sitting next to the first person in the same line when seated at the round table.
The case of 5 persons on 6 occasions may be solved as follows:—
The situation involving 5 people on 6 occasions can be addressed like this:—
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 4 5 3 |
1 2 5 3 4 |
1 3 2 5 4 |
1 4 2 3 5 |
1 5 2 4 3 |
The case for 6 persons on 10 occasions is solved thus:—
The case for 6 people on 10 occasions is solved like this:—
1 2 3 6 4 5 |
1 3 4 2 5 6 |
1 4 5 3 6 2 |
1 5 6 4 2 3 |
1 6 2 5 3 4 |
1 2 4 5 6 3 |
1 3 5 6 2 4 |
1 4 6 2 3 5 |
1 5 2 3 4 6 |
1 6 3 4 5 2 |
It will now no longer be necessary to give the solutions in full, for reasons that I will explain. It will be seen in the examples above that the 1 (and, in the case of 5 persons, also the 2) Pg 206is repeated down the column. Such a number I call a "repeater." The other numbers descend in cyclical order. Thus, for 6 persons we get the cycle, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, and so on, in every column. So it is only necessary to give the two lines 1 2 3 6 4 5 and 1 2 4 5 6 3, and denote the cycle and repeaters, to enable any one to write out the full solution straight away. The reader may wonder why I do not start the last solution with the numbers in their natural order, 1 2 3 4 5 6. If I did so the numbers in the descending cycle would not be in their natural order, and it is more convenient to have a regular cycle than to consider the order in the first line.
It’s no longer necessary to provide the full solutions for reasons I’ll explain. You can see in the examples above that the 1 (and in the case of 5 people, also the 2) Pg 206 is repeated down the column. I refer to such a number as a "repeater." The other numbers follow a cyclical order. Therefore, for 6 people, we get the cycle: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, and so on, in every column. So, it’s enough to provide the two lines 1 2 3 6 4 5 and 1 2 4 5 6 3, and indicate the cycle and repeaters, allowing anyone to write out the full solution right away. You might wonder why I don’t start the last solution with the numbers in their natural order, 1 2 3 4 5 6. If I did, the numbers in the descending cycle wouldn’t be in their natural order, and it's easier to maintain a regular cycle than to focus on the order in the first line.
The difficult case of 7 persons on 15 occasions is solved as follows, and was given by me in The Canterbury Puzzles:—
The tricky situation of 7 people occurring 15 times is solved like this, and I presented it in The Canterbury Puzzles:—
1 2 3 4 5 7 6 |
1 6 2 7 5 3 4 |
1 3 5 2 6 7 4 |
1 5 7 4 3 6 2 |
1 5 2 7 3 4 6 |
In this case the 1 is a repeater, and there are two separate cycles, 2, 3, 4, 2, and 5, 6, 7, 5. We thus get five groups of three lines each, for a fourth line in any group will merely repeat the first line.
In this case, the 1 is a repeater, and there are two separate cycles, 2, 3, 4, 2, and 5, 6, 7, 5. So, we end up with five groups of three lines each, since a fourth line in any group will just repeat the first line.
A solution for 8 persons on 21 occasions is as follows:—
A solution for 8 people on 21 occasions is as follows:—
1 8 6 3 4 5 2 7 |
1 8 4 5 7 2 3 6 |
1 8 2 7 3 6 4 5 |
The 1 is here a repeater, and the cycle 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Every one of the 3 groups will give 7 lines.
The 1 is here a repeater, and the cycle 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Each of the 3 groups will provide 7 lines.
Here is my solution for 9 persons on 28 occasions:—
Here is my solution for 9 people on 28 occasions:—
2 1 9 7 4 5 6 3 8 |
2 9 5 1 6 8 3 4 7 |
2 9 3 1 8 4 7 5 6 |
2 9 1 5 6 4 7 8 3 |
There are here two repeaters, 1 and 2, and the cycle is 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. We thus get 4 groups of 7 lines each.
There are two repeaters, 1 and 2, and the cycle is 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. This gives us 4 groups of 7 lines each.
The case of 10 persons on 36 occasions is solved as follows:—
The case of 10 people on 36 occasions is solved as follows:—
1 10 8 3 6 5 4 7 2 9 |
1 10 6 5 2 9 7 4 3 8 |
1 10 2 9 3 8 6 5 7 4 |
1 10 7 4 8 3 2 9 5 6 |
The repeater is 1, and the cycle, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. We here have 4 groups of 9 lines each.
The repeater is 1, and the cycle is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we have 4 groups of 9 lines each.
My solution for 11 persons on 45 occasions is as follows:—
My solution for 11 people on 45 occasions is as follows:—
2 | 11 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 10 |
2 | 1 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
2 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 6 |
2 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 4 |
2 | 11 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
There are two repeaters, 1 and 2, and the cycle is, 3, 4, 5,... 11. We thus get 5 groups of 9 lines each.
There are two repeaters, 1 and 2, and the cycle is 3, 4, 5,... 11. We thus get 5 groups of 9 lines each.
The case of 12 persons on 55 occasions is solved thus:—
The case of 12 people on 55 occasions is solved this way:—
1 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 11 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 |
1 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 12 | 3 |
1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 9 |
1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 11 | 4 |
1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 10 |
Here 1 is a repeater, and the cycle is 2, 3, 4, 5,... 12. We thus get 5 groups of 11 lines each.
Here 1 is a repeater, and the cycle is 2, 3, 4, 5,... 12. We thus get 5 groups of 11 lines each.
If we interchange cards 6 and 13 and begin our count at 14, we may take up all the twenty-one cards—that is, make twenty-one "catches"—in the following order: 6, 8, 13, 2, 10, 1, 11, 4, 14, 3, 5, 7, 21, 12, 15, 20, 9, 16, 18, 17, 19. We may also exchange 10 and 14 and start at 16, or exchange 6 and 8 and start at 19.
If we swap cards 6 and 13 and start counting at 14, we can take all twenty-one cards—that is, make twenty-one "catches"—in this order: 6, 8, 13, 2, 10, 1, 11, 4, 14, 3, 5, 7, 21, 12, 15, 20, 9, 16, 18, 17, 19. We can also swap 10 and 14 and start at 16, or swap 6 and 8 and start at 19.
The six diagrams on next page show solutions for the cases where we replace 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 hurdles. The dark lines indicate the hurdles that have been replaced. There are, of course, other ways of making the removals.
The six diagrams on the next page show solutions for the cases where we replace 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 hurdles. The dark lines indicate the hurdles that have been replaced. There are, of course, other ways to make the removals.

There are several ways of solving the puzzle, but there is very little difference between them. The solver should, however, first of all bear in mind that in making his calculations he need only consider the four villas that stand at the corners, because the intermediate villas can never vary when the corners are known. One way is to place the numbers nought to 9 one at a time in the top left-hand corner, and then consider each case in turn.
There are several ways to solve the puzzle, but there's not much difference between them. The solver should, first of all, remember that when calculating, they only need to focus on the four villas at the corners because the villas in between can never change once the corners are known. One method is to place the numbers 0 to 9 one at a time in the top left corner, and then consider each case individually.

Now, if we place 9 in the corner as shown in the Diagram A, two of the corners cannot be occupied, while the corner that is diagonally opposite may be filled by 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 persons. We thus see that there are 10Pg 207 solutions with a 9 in the corner. If, however, we substitute 8, the two corners in the same row and column may contain 0, 0, or 1, 1, or 0, 1, or 1, 0. In the case of B, ten different selections may be made for the fourth corner; but in each of the cases C, D, and E, only nine selections are possible, because we cannot use the 9. Therefore with 8 in the top left-hand corner there are 10 + (3 × 9) = 37 different solutions. If we then try 7 in the corner, the result will be 10 + 27 + 40, or 77 solutions. With 6 we get 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 = 126; with 5, 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 + 54 = 180; with 4, the same as with 5, + 55 = 235 ; with 3, the same as with 4, + 52 = 287; with 2, the same as with 3, + 45 = 332; with 1, the same as with 2, + 34 = 366, and with nought in the top left-hand corner the number of solutions will be found to be 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 + 54 + 55 + 52 + 45 + 34 + 19 = 385. As there is no other number to be placed in the top left-hand corner, we have now only to add these totals together thus, 10 + 37 + 77 + 126 + 180 + 235 + 287 + 332 + 366 + 385 = 2,035. We therefore find that the total number of ways in which tenants may occupy some or all of the eight villas so that there shall be always nine persons living along each side of the square is 2,035. Of course, this method must obviously cover all the reversals and reflections, since each corner in turn is occupied by every number in all possible combinations with the other two corners that are in line with it.
Now, if we put 9 in the corner as shown in Diagram A, two of the corners can’t be used, while the corner diagonally opposite can be filled by 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 people. This means that there are 10Pg 207 solutions with a 9 in the corner. If we replace it with 8, the two corners in the same row and column can have 0, 0, or 1, 1, or 0, 1, or 1, 0. In case B, we can make ten different choices for the fourth corner; but in cases C, D, and E, we can only make nine choices because we can't use 9. So with 8 in the top left corner, there are 10 + (3 × 9) = 37 different solutions. If we try 7 in the corner, we get 10 + 27 + 40, which equals 77 solutions. With 6, we have 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 = 126; with 5, it’s 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 + 54 = 180; with 4, the same as with 5, plus 55 = 235; with 3, the same as with 4, plus 52 = 287; with 2, the same as with 3, plus 45 = 332; with 1, the same as with 2, plus 34 = 366, and with zero in the top left corner, the number of solutions will be 10 + 27 + 40 + 49 + 54 + 55 + 52 + 45 + 34 + 19 = 385. Since there are no other numbers to place in the top left corner, we just need to add these totals together: 10 + 37 + 77 + 126 + 180 + 235 + 287 + 332 + 366 + 385 = 2,035. Therefore, the total number of ways the residents can occupy some or all of the eight villas so that there are always nine people living along each side of the square is 2,035. This method clearly includes all the reversals and reflections since each corner is occupied by every number in all possible combinations with the other two corners in line with it.
Here is a general formula for solving the puzzle: (n² + 3n + 2)(n² + 3n + 3)/6. Whatever may be the stipulated number of residents along each of the sides (which number is represented by n), the total number of different arrangements may be thus ascertained. In our particular case the number of residents was nine. Therefore (81 + 27 + 2) × (81 + 27 + 3) and the product, divided by 6, gives 2,035. If the number of residents had been 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, the total arrangements would be 1, 7, 26, 70, 155, 301, 532, 876, or 1,365 respectively.
Here’s a general formula for solving the puzzle: (n² + 3n + 2)(n² + 3n + 3)/6. No matter how many residents are on each side (represented by n), you can determine the total number of different arrangements. In our specific case, there were nine residents. So, (81 + 27 + 2) × (81 + 27 + 3), and when you divide the product by 6, you get 2,035. If the number of residents had been 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, the total arrangements would be 1, 7, 26, 70, 155, 301, 532, 876, or 1,365, respectively.
Let us first deal with the Greek Cross. There are just eighteen forms in which the numbers may be paired for the two arms. Here they are:—
Let’s first talk about the Greek Cross. There are only eighteen ways to pair the numbers for the two arms. Here they are:—
12978 | 13968 | 14958 |
34956 | 24957 | 23967 |
23958 | 13769 | 14759 |
14967 | 24758 | 23768 |
12589 | 23759 | 13579 |
34567 | 14768 | 24568 |
14569 | 23569 | 14379 |
23578 | 14578 | 25368 |
15369 | 24369 | 23189 |
24378 | 15378 | 45167 |
24179 | 25169 | 34169 |
35168 | 34178 | 25178 |
Pg 208Of course, the number in the middle is common to both arms. The first pair is the one I gave as an example. I will suppose that we have written out all these crosses, always placing the first row of a pair in the upright and the second row in the horizontal arm. Now, if we leave the central figure fixed, there are 24 ways in which the numbers in the upright may be varied, for the four counters may be changed in 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 = 24 ways. And as the four in the horizontal may also be changed in 24 ways for every arrangement on the other arm, we find that there are 24 × 24 = 576 variations for every form; therefore, as there are 18 forms, we get 18 × 576 = 10,368 ways. But this will include half the four reversals and half the four reflections that we barred, so we must divide this by 4 to obtain the correct answer to the Greek Cross, which is thus 2,592 different ways. The division is by 4 and not by 8, because we provided against half the reversals and reflections by always reserving one number for the upright and the other for the horizontal.
Pg 208Of course, the number in the middle is the same for both sides. The first pair is the example I gave. Let's assume we’ve written out all these crosses, always placing the first row of a pair in the upright position and the second row in the horizontal position. Now, if we keep the central figure fixed, there are 24 ways to change the numbers in the upright since the four counters can be arranged in 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 = 24 ways. And since the four in the horizontal can also be changed in 24 ways for each arrangement on the other side, we have 24 × 24 = 576 variations for every form. Therefore, with 18 forms, we get 18 × 576 = 10,368 ways. However, this counts half of the four reversals and half of the four reflections that we excluded, so we need to divide this by 4 to get the correct number for the Greek Cross, which is 2,592 different ways. We divide by 4 and not 8 because we accounted for half the reversals and reflections by always reserving one number for the upright and the other for the horizontal.
In the case of the Latin Cross, it is obvious that we have to deal with the same 18 forms of pairing. The total number of different ways in this case is the full number, 18 × 576. Owing to the fact that the upper and lower arms are unequal in length, permutations will repeat by reflection, but not by reversal, for we cannot reverse. Therefore this fact only entails division by 2. But in every pair we may exchange the figures in the upright with those in the horizontal (which we could not do in the case of the Greek Cross, as the arms are there all alike); consequently we must multiply by 2. This multiplication by 2 and division by 2 cancel one another. Hence 10,368 is here the correct answer.
In the case of the Latin Cross, it's clear that we have to deal with the same 18 pairing forms. The total number of different arrangements here is the full count, 18 × 576. Since the upper and lower arms are different lengths, permutations will be repeated through reflection, but not through reversal, as we cannot reverse them. Therefore, this only requires us to divide by 2. However, in every pair, we can switch the figures in the vertical position with those in the horizontal position (which we couldn't do with the Greek Cross, since all the arms are the same); so we need to multiply by 2. This multiplication and division by 2 cancel each other out. Thus, 10,368 is the correct answer.

Arrange the nuns from day to day as shown in the six diagrams. The smallest possible number of nuns would be thirty-two, and the arrangements on the last three days admit of variation.
Arrange the nuns from day to day as shown in the six diagrams. The smallest possible number of nuns would be thirty-two, and the arrangements on the last three days allow for variation.
This is quite easy to solve for any number of barrels—if you know how. This is the way to do it. There are five barrels in each row Multiply the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 together; and also multiply 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 together. Divide one result by the other, and we get the number of different combinations or selections of ten things taken five at a time. This is here 252. Now, if we divide this by 6 (1 more than the number in the row) we get 42, which is the correct answer to the puzzle, for there are 42 different ways of arranging the barrels. Try this method of solution in the case of six barrels, three in each row, and you will find the answer is 5 ways. If you check this by trial, you will discover the five arrangements with 123, 124, 125, 134, 135 respectively in the top row, and you will find no others.
This is pretty easy to solve for any number of barrels—if you know how. Here's how to do it. There are five barrels in each row. Multiply the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 together; then multiply 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 together. Divide one result by the other, and you get the number of different combinations or selections of ten items taken five at a time. This number is 252. Now, if we divide this by 6 (which is one more than the number of barrels in the row), we get 42, which is the correct answer to the puzzle, as there are 42 different ways to arrange the barrels. Try this method with six barrels, three in each row, and you'll find the answer is 5 ways. If you check by trying it out, you'll discover the five arrangements with 123, 124, 125, 134, and 135 in the top row, and you won't find any others.
The general solution to the problem is, in fact, this:
The overall solution to the problem is actually this:
C | n |
2n | |
n + 1 |
where 2n equals the number of barrels. The symbol C, of course, implies that we have to find how many combinations, or selections, we can make of 2n things, taken n at a time.
where 2n equals the number of barrels. The symbol C indicates that we need to determine how many combinations or selections we can make from 2n items, choosing n at a time.
Take your constructed pyramid and hold it so that one stick only lies on the table. Now, four sticks must branch off from it in different directions—two at each end. Any one of the five sticks may be left out of this connection; therefore the four may be selected in 5 different ways. But these four matches may be placed in 24 different orders. And as any match may be joined at either of its ends, they may further be varied (after their situations are settled for any particular arrangement) in 16 different ways. In every arrangement the sixth stick may be added in 2 different ways. Now multiply these results together, and we get 5 × 24 × 16 × 2 = 3,840 as the exact number of ways in which the pyramid may be constructed. This method excludes all possibility of error.
Take your constructed pyramid and hold it so that only one stick is resting on the table. Now, four sticks must extend from it in different directions—two at each end. Any one of the five sticks can be left out of this connection; therefore, the four can be chosen in 5 different ways. These four sticks can be arranged in 24 different orders. Since any stick can be connected at either end, they can be adjusted (after their positions are fixed for any specific arrangement) in 16 different ways. In every arrangement, the sixth stick can be added in 2 different ways. Now multiply these results together, and we get 5 × 24 × 16 × 2 = 3,840 as the exact number of ways the pyramid can be constructed. This method eliminates any chance of error.
A common cause of error is this. If you calculate your combinations by working upwards from a basic triangle lying on the table, you will get half the correct number of ways, because you overlook the fact that an equal number of pyramids may be built on that triangle downwards, so to speak, through the table. They are, in fact, reflections of the others, and examples from the two sets of pyramids cannot be set up to resemble one another—except under fourth dimensional conditions!
A common cause of error is this. If you calculate your combinations by working upwards from a basic triangle on the table, you will get half the correct number of ways, because you overlook the fact that an equal number of pyramids can be built on that triangle downwards, so to speak, through the table. They are, in fact, reflections of each other, and examples from the two sets of pyramids cannot be arranged to resemble one another—except under fourth-dimensional conditions!
It will be convenient to imagine that we are painting our pyramids on the flat cardboard, as in the diagrams, before folding up. Now, if we take any four colours (say red, blue, green, and yellow), they may be applied in only 2 distinctive ways, as shown in Figs, 1 and 2. Any other way will only result in one of these when the pyramids are folded up. If we take any three colours, they may be applied in the 3 ways shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. If we take any two colours, they may be applied in the 3 Pg 209ways shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. If we take any single colour, it may obviously be applied in only 1 way. But four colours may be selected in 35 ways out of seven; three in 35 ways; two in 21 ways; and one colour in 7 ways. Therefore 35 applied in 2 ways = 70; 35 in 3 ways = 105; 21 in 3 ways = 63; and 7 in 1 way = 7. Consequently the pyramid may be painted in 245 different ways (70 + 105 + 63 + 7), using the seven colours of the solar spectrum in accordance with the conditions of the puzzle.
It will be helpful to think of painting our pyramids on flat cardboard, like in the diagrams, before folding them. Now, if we choose any four colors (let's say red, blue, green, and yellow), they can be applied in only 2 distinct ways, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Any other combination will result in one of these when the pyramids are folded. If we pick any three colors, they can be applied in the 3 ways shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. If we select any two colors, they can be applied in the 3 Pg 209 ways shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. If we use any single color, it can clearly only be applied in 1 way. However, four colors can be chosen in 35 ways from seven; three in 35 ways; two in 21 ways; and one color in 7 ways. So, 35 applied in 2 ways = 70; 35 in 3 ways = 105; 21 in 3 ways = 63; and 7 in 1 way = 7. Therefore, the pyramid can be painted in 245 different ways (70 + 105 + 63 + 7), using the seven colors of the solar spectrum according to the conditions of the puzzle.


The number of ways in which nine things may be arranged in a row without any restrictions is 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 × 9 = 362,880. But we are told that the two circular rings must never be together; therefore we must deduct the number of times that this would occur. The number is 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 = 40,320 × 2 = 80,640, because if we consider the two circular links to be inseparably joined together they become as one link, and eight links are capable of 40,320 arrangements; but as these two links may always be put on in the orders AB or BA, we have to double this number, it being a question of arrangement and not of design. The deduction required reduces our total to 282,240. Then one of our links is of a peculiar form, like an 8. We have therefore the option of joining on either one end or the other on every occasion, so we must double the last result. This brings up our total to 564,480.
The number of ways to arrange nine items in a row without any restrictions is 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 × 9 = 362,880. However, since the two circular rings can't be together, we need to subtract the instances where they are. That number is 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 = 40,320 × 2 = 80,640, because if we treat the two circular rings as a single link, we have eight links which can be arranged in 40,320 ways; since these two rings can be arranged as AB or BA, we need to double this number, as it's about arrangement, not design. This deduction brings our total down to 282,240. Additionally, one of our links is shaped like an 8. This means we can attach it at either end every time, so we must double the last result. This brings our total to 564,480.
We now come to the point to which I directed the reader's attention—that every link may be put on in one of two ways. If we join the first finger and thumb of our left hand horizontally, and then link the first finger and thumb of the right hand, we see that the right thumb may be either above or below. But in the case of our chain we must remember that although that 8-shaped link has two independent ends it is like every other link in having only two sides—that is, you cannot turn over one end without turning the other at the same time.
We now come to the point I wanted to highlight—that every link can be joined in one of two ways. If we put the first finger and thumb of our left hand together horizontally, and then connect the first finger and thumb of the right hand, we see that the right thumb can be either above or below. However, in our chain, we must remember that while that 8-shaped link has two independent ends, it is like every other link in that it has only two sides—meaning you can’t flip one end without flipping the other at the same time.
We will, for convenience, assume that each link has a black side and a side painted white. Now, if it were stipulated that (with the chain lying on the table, and every successive link falling over its predecessor in the same way, as in the diagram) only the white sides should be uppermost as in A, then the answer would be 564,480, as above—ignoring for the present all reversals of the completed chain. If, however, the first link were allowed to be placed either side up, then we could have either A or B, and the answer would be 2 × 564,480 = 1,128,960; if two links might be placed either way up, the answer would be 4 × 564,480; if three links, then 8 × 564,480, and so on. Since, therefore, every link may be placed either side up, the number will be 564,480 multiplied by 29, or by 512. This raises our total to 289,013,760.
For convenience, let’s assume each link has one black side and one white side. Now, if we specify that (with the chain lying flat on the table and each link stacking on top of the one before it, as shown in the diagram) only the white sides should be facing up, then the total would be 564,480, as stated before—without considering any reversals of the completed chain for now. However, if the first link can be placed either side up, then we could have either A or B, and the total would be 2 × 564,480 = 1,128,960. If two links could be oriented either way, the total would be 4 × 564,480. If three links can be arranged either way, then it would be 8 × 564,480, and so on. Since every link can be placed either side up, the total will be 564,480 multiplied by 29, or by 512. This brings our total to 289,013,760.
But there is still one more point to be considered. We have not yet allowed for the fact that with any given arrangement three of the other arrangements may be obtained by simply turning the chain over through its entire length and by reversing the ends. Thus C is really the same as A, and if we turn this page upside down, then A and C give two other arrangements that are still really identical. Thus to get the correct answer to the puzzle we must divide our last total by 4, when we find that there are just 72,253,440 different ways in which the smith might have put those links together. In other words, if the nine links had originally formed a piece of chain, and it was known that the two circular links were separated, then it would be 72,253,439 chances to 1 that the smith would not have put the links together again precisely as they were arranged before!
But there's one more thing to consider. We haven't accounted for the fact that for any arrangement, three other arrangements can be created simply by flipping the chain over its entire length and switching the ends. So, C is essentially the same as A, and if we turn this page upside down, then A and C produce two other arrangements that are still essentially identical. Therefore, to get the correct answer to the puzzle, we need to divide our last total by 4, which gives us 72,253,440 different ways the smith could have assembled those links. In other words, if the nine links originally formed a piece of chain, and it was known that the two circular links were separated, then the chances would be 72,253,439 to 1 that the smith would not have reassembled the links exactly as they were before!
The reader may have noticed that at each end of the line I give is a four, so that, if we like, we can form a ring instead of a line. It can easily be proved that this must always be so. Every line arrangement will make a circular arrangement if we like to join the ends. Now, curious as it may at first appear, the following diagram exactly represents the conditions when we leave the doubles out of the question and devote our attention to forming circular arrangements. Each number, or half domino, is in line with every other number, so that if we start at any one of the five numbers and go over all the lines of the pentagon once and once only we shall come back to the starting place, and the order of our route will give us one of the circular arrangements for the ten Pg 210dominoes. Take your pencil and follow out the following route, starting at the 4: 41304210234. You have been over all the lines once only, and by repeating all these figures in this way, 41—13—30—04—42—21—10—02—23—34, you get an arrangement of the dominoes (without the doubles) which will be perfectly clear. Take other routes and you will get other arrangements. If, therefore, we can ascertain just how many of these circular routes are obtainable from the pentagon, then the rest is very easy.
The reader might have noticed that at each end of the line I give is a four, so that, if we want, we can form a ring instead of a line. It can be easily shown that this is always the case. Any line arrangement can create a circular arrangement if we decide to join the ends. Now, as curious as it may seem at first, the following diagram exactly represents the conditions when we exclude the doubles and focus on forming circular arrangements. Each number, or half domino, aligns with every other number, so if we start at any one of the five numbers and travel over all the lines of the pentagon once and only once, we will return to the starting point, and the order of our route will give us one of the circular arrangements for the ten Pg 210 dominoes. Grab your pencil and follow this route, starting at the 4: 41304210234. You have covered all the lines once only, and by repeating all these figures this way, 41—13—30—04—42—21—10—02—23—34, you get a clear arrangement of the dominoes (without the doubles). Take other routes and you will find other arrangements. If we can determine how many of these circular routes can be obtained from the pentagon, then the rest is quite straightforward.
Well, the number of different circular routes over the pentagon is 264. How I arrive at these figures I will not at present explain, because it would take a lot of space. The dominoes may, therefore, be arranged in a circle in just 264 different ways, leaving out the doubles. Now, in any one of these circles the five doubles may be inserted in 25 = 32 different ways. Therefore when we include the doubles there are 264 × 32 = 8,448 different circular arrangements. But each of those circles may be broken (so as to form our straight line) in any one of 15 different places. Consequently, 8,448 × 15 gives 126,720 different ways as the correct answer to the puzzle.
Well, there are 264 different circular routes over the pentagon. I won’t explain how I got these numbers right now because it would take up too much space. Thus, the dominoes can be arranged in a circle in just 264 different ways, excluding the doubles. Now, in any of these circles, the five doubles can be inserted in 25 = 32 different ways. So, when we include the doubles, we get 264 × 32 = 8,448 different circular arrangements. However, each of those circles can be broken (to create our straight line) in one of 15 different places. As a result, 8,448 × 15 gives 126,720 different ways as the correct answer to the puzzle.

I purposely refrained from asking the reader to discover in just how many different ways the full set of twenty-eight dominoes may be arranged in a straight line in accordance with the ordinary rules of the game, left to right and right to left of any arrangement counting as different ways. It is an exceedingly difficult problem, but the correct answer is 7,959,229,931,520 ways. The method of solving is very complex.
I intentionally avoided asking the reader to figure out how many different ways the full set of twenty-eight dominoes can be arranged in a straight line according to the standard rules of the game, with arrangements from left to right and right to left considered as different ways. It's an extremely challenging problem, but the correct answer is 7,959,229,931,520 ways. The method for solving it is quite complex.

Twenty-one different squares may be selected. Of these nine will be of the size shown by the four A's in the diagram, four of the size shown by the B's, four of the size shown by the C's, two of the size shown by the D's, and two of the size indicated by the upper single A, the upper single E, the lower single C, and the EB. It is an interesting fact that you cannot form any one of these twenty-one squares without using at least one of the six circles marked E.
Twenty-one different squares can be chosen. Of these, nine will be the size represented by the four A's in the diagram, four will be the size shown by the B's, four will be the size indicated by the C's, two will be the size represented by the D's, and two will be the size indicated by the upper single A, the upper single E, the lower single C, and the EB. It's interesting to note that you can't create any of these twenty-one squares without using at least one of the six circles marked E.
Referring to the original diagram, the four stamps may be given in the shape 1, 2, 3, 4, in three ways; in the shape 1, 2, 5, 6, in six ways; in the shape 1, 2, 3, 5, or 1, 2, 3, 7, or 1, 5, 6, 7, or 3, 5, 6, 7, in twenty-eight ways; in shape 1, 2, 3, 6, or 2, 5, 6, 7, in fourteen ways; in shape 1, 2, 6, 7, or 2, 3, 5, 6, or 1, 5, 6, 10, or 2, 5, 6, 9, in fourteen ways. Thus there are sixty-five ways in all.
Referring to the original diagram, the four stamps can be arranged as 1, 2, 3, 4 in three ways; as 1, 2, 5, 6 in six ways; as 1, 2, 3, 5 or 1, 2, 3, 7 or 1, 5, 6, 7 or 3, 5, 6, 7 in twenty-eight ways; as 1, 2, 3, 6 or 2, 5, 6, 7 in fourteen ways; and as 1, 2, 6, 7 or 2, 3, 5, 6 or 1, 5, 6, 10 or 2, 5, 6, 9 in fourteen ways. So, there are a total of sixty-five ways.
The 1 can be marked on any one of six different sides. For every side occupied by 1 we have a selection of four sides for the 2. For every situation of the 2 we have two places for the 3. (The 6, 5, and 4 need not be considered, as their positions are determined by the 1, 2, and 3.) Therefore 6, 4, and 2 multiplied together make 48 different ways—the correct answer.
The 1 can be placed on any one of six different sides. For each side occupied by 1, we have a choice of four sides for the 2. For each position of the 2, there are two spots for the 3. (The 6, 5, and 4 don’t need to be considered, as their positions are determined by the 1, 2, and 3.) Therefore, 6, 4, and 2 multiplied together equal 48 different ways—the correct answer.
There are twenty-six letters in the alphabet, giving 325 different pairs. Every one of these pairs may be reversed, making 650 ways. But every initial letter may be repeated as the final, producing 26 other ways. The total is therefore 676 different pairs. In other words, the answer is the square of the number of letters in the alphabet.
There are twenty-six letters in the alphabet, creating 325 different pairs. Each of these pairs can be reversed, resulting in 650 total combinations. Additionally, any initial letter can also be used as the final letter, adding 26 more combinations. So, the total comes to 676 different pairs. In other words, the answer is the square of the number of letters in the alphabet.
There are 255 different ways of cutting the board into two pieces of exactly the same size Pg 211and shape. Every way must involve one of the five cuts shown in Diagrams A, B, C, D, and E. To avoid repetitions by reversal and reflection, we need only consider cuts that enter at the points a, b, and c. But the exit must always be at a point in a straight line from the entry through the centre. This is the most important condition to remember. In case B you cannot enter at a, or you will get the cut provided for in E. Similarly in C or D, you must not enter the key-line in the same direction as itself, or you will get A or B. If you are working on A or C and entering at a, you must consider joins at one end only of the key-line, or you will get repetitions. In other cases you must consider joins at both ends of the key; but after leaving a in case D, turn always either to right or left—use one direction only. Figs. 1 and 2 are examples under A; 3 and 4 are examples under B; 5 and 6 come under C; Pg 212and 7 is a pretty example of D. Of course, E is a peculiar type, and obviously admits of only one way of cutting, for you clearly cannot enter at b or c.
There are 255 different ways to cut the board into two pieces of exactly the same size Pg 211and shape. Each method must use one of the five cuts shown in Diagrams A, B, C, D, and E. To avoid repeating cuts by reversing or reflecting them, we only need to consider cuts that start at points a, b, and c. However, the exit must always be at a point that forms a straight line with the entry through the center. This is the most important rule to remember. In case B, you can't start at a, or you'll produce the cut shown in E. Likewise, for C or D, you must not enter the key-line in the same direction as it, or you'll end up with A or B. If you're working on A or C and entering at a, you should only consider joins at one end of the key-line, or you'll create repetitions. In other situations, you need to consider joins at both ends of the key; but after leaving a in case D, always turn either right or left—stick to one direction only. Figs. 1 and 2 are examples for A; 3 and 4 are examples for B; 5 and 6 are under C; Pg 212and 7 is a nice example of D. Of course, E is a unique type and clearly allows for only one way of cutting, as you can't start at b or c.

Here is a table of the results:—
Here is a table of the results:—
a | b | c | Ways. | |||||
A | = | 8 | + | 17 | + | 21 | = | 46 |
B | = | 0 | + | 17 | + | 21 | = | 38 |
C | = | 15 | + | 31 | + | 39 | = | 85 |
D | = | 17 | + | 29 | + | 39 | = | 85 |
E | = | 1 | + | 0 | + | 0 | = | 1 |
41 | 94 | 120 | 255 |
I have not attempted the task of enumerating the ways of dividing a board 8x8—that is, an ordinary chessboard. Whatever the method adopted, the solution would entail considerable labour.
I haven't tried to list the ways to divide an 8x8 board—that is, a regular chessboard. No matter what method is used, finding a solution would require a lot of work.

Here is the solution. It will be seen that each of the four pieces (after making the cuts along the thick lines) is of exactly the same size and shape, and that each piece contains a lion and a crown. Two of the pieces are shaded so as to make the solution quite clear to the eye.
Here’s the solution. You can see that each of the four pieces (after cutting along the thick lines) is exactly the same size and shape, and each piece has a lion and a crown. Two of the pieces are shaded to make the solution clear at a glance.
There are fifteen different ways of cutting the 5x5 board (with the central square removed) into two pieces of the same size and shape. Limitations of space will not allow me to give diagrams of all these, but I will enable the reader to draw them all out for himself without the slightest difficulty. At whatever point on the edge your cut enters, it must always end at a point on the edge, exactly opposite in a line through the centre of the square. Thus, if you enter at point 1 (see Fig. 1) at the top, you must leave at point 1 at the bottom. Now, 1 and 2 are the only two really different points of entry; if we use any others they will simply produce similar solutions. The directions of the cuts in the following fifteen
There are fifteen different ways to cut the 5x5 board (with the center square removed) into two pieces that are the same size and shape. Due to space constraints, I can't provide diagrams for all of these, but I'll make it easy for you to draw them out yourself without any trouble. No matter where you start your cut along the edge, it has to end at a point on the opposite edge, across a line through the center of the square. So, if you start at point 1 (see Fig. 1) at the top, you have to end at point 1 at the bottom. Points 1 and 2 are the only two truly different entry points; using any others will just create similar solutions. The directions for the cuts in the following fifteen are

solutions are indicated by the numbers on the diagram. The duplication of the numbers can lead to no confusion, since every successive number is contiguous to the previous one. But whichever direction you take from the top downwards you must repeat from the bottom upwards, one direction being an exact reflection of the other.
Solutions are shown by the numbers on the diagram. The duplication of the numbers shouldn’t cause any confusion, since each successive number is next to the previous one. Regardless of which direction you go from the top down, you have to repeat from the bottom up, with one direction being a mirror reflection of the other.
1, 4, 8. |
1, 4, 3, 7, 8. |
1, 4, 3, 7, 10, 9. |
1, 4, 3, 7, 10, 6, 5, 9. |
1, 4, 5, 9. |
1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 9. |
1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 7, 8. |
2, 3, 4, 8. |
2, 3, 4, 5, 9. |
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 9. |
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 7, 8. |
2, 3, 7, 8. |
2, 3, 7, 10, 9. |
2, 3, 7, 10, 6, 5, 9. |
2, 3, 7, 10, 6, 5, 4, 8. |
It will be seen that the fourth direction (1, 4, 3, 7, 10, 6, 5, 9) produces the solution shown in Fig. 2. The thirteenth produces the solution given in propounding the puzzle, where the cut entered at the side instead of at the top. The pieces, however, will be of the same shape if turned over, which, as it was stated in the conditions, would not constitute a different solution.
It will be evident that the fourth direction (1, 4, 3, 7, 10, 6, 5, 9) results in the solution shown in Fig. 2. The thirteenth direction results in the solution provided in presenting the puzzle, where the cut starts from the side instead of the top. However, the pieces will be the same shape if flipped over, which, as stated in the conditions, wouldn't count as a different solution.
The method of dividing the chessboard so that each of the four parts shall be of exactly the same size and shape, and contain one of the gems, is shown in the diagram. The method of shading the squares is adopted to make the shape of the pieces clear to the eye. Two of the pieces are shaded and two left white.
The way to divide the chessboard so that each of the four sections is exactly the same size and shape, with one of the gems in each, is illustrated in the diagram. The shading of the squares is used to clearly define the shape of the pieces. Two of the pieces are shaded, while the other two are left white.
The reader may find it interesting to compare this puzzle with that of the "Weaver" (No. 14, Canterbury Puzzles).
The reader might find it interesting to compare this puzzle with the one from the "Weaver" (No. 14, Canterbury Puzzles).

The man who was "learned in strange mysteries" pointed out to Father John that the orders of the Lord Abbot of St. Edmondsbury might be easily carried out by blocking up twelve of the lights in the window as shown by the dark squares in the following sketch:—
The man who was "knowledgeable in unusual mysteries" told Father John that the commands of the Lord Abbot of St. Edmondsbury could be easily fulfilled by covering up twelve of the lights in the window, as illustrated by the dark squares in the following sketch:—

Father John held that the four corners should also be darkened, but the sage explained that it was desired to obstruct no more light than was absolutely necessary, and he said, anticipating Lord Dundreary, "A single pane can no more be in a line with itself than one bird can go into a corner and flock in solitude. The Abbot's condition was that no diagonal lines should contain an odd number of lights."
Father John believed that the four corners should also be darkened, but the wise man explained that they only wanted to block as much light as absolutely necessary. He said, anticipating Lord Dundreary, "One pane can no more be in a line with itself than one bird can go into a corner and flock alone. The Abbot's condition was that no diagonal lines should have an odd number of lights."
Now, when the holy man saw what had been done he was well pleased, and said, "Truly, Father John, thou art a man of deep wisdom, in that thou hast done that which seemed impossible, and yet withal adorned our window with a device of the cross of St. Andrew, whose name I received from my godfathers and godmothers." Thereafter he slept well and arose refreshed. The window might be seen intact to-day in the monastery of St. Edmondsbury, if it existed, which, alas! the window does not.
Now, when the holy man saw what had been done, he was very pleased and said, "Truly, Father John, you are a man of great wisdom, as you have accomplished what seemed impossible, and at the same time adorned our window with a design of the cross of St. Andrew, whose name I received from my godparents." After that, he slept well and woke up refreshed. The window could still be seen today in the monastery of St. Edmondsbury, if it existed, which, unfortunately, it does not.

Eighteen is the maximum number of pieces. I give two solutions. The numbered diagram is so cut that the eighteenth piece has the largest area—eight squares—that is possible under the conditions. The second diagram was prepared under the added condition that no piece should contain more than five squares.
Eighteen is the maximum number of pieces. I provide two solutions. The numbered diagram is cut in such a way that the eighteenth piece has the largest area—eight squares—that's possible under the given conditions. The second diagram was created with the additional condition that no piece can contain more than five squares.

The pieces may be fitted together, as shown in the illustration, to form a perfect chessboard.
The pieces can be put together, as shown in the illustration, to create a perfect chessboard.
Obviously there must be a rook in every row and every column. Starting with the top row, it is clear that we may put our first rook on any one of eight different squares. Wherever it is placed, we have the option of seven squares for the second rook in the second row. Then we have six squares from which to select the third row, five in the fourth, and so on. Therefore the number of our different ways must be 8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 40,320 (that is 8!), which is the correct answer.
Clearly, there has to be a rook in every row and every column. Starting with the top row, we can place our first rook in any one of eight different squares. No matter where it goes, we have seven options for placing the second rook in the second row. For the third row, we have six squares to choose from, five in the fourth, and so on. So, the total number of different arrangements we can make is 8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 40,320 (which is 8!), and that's the right answer.
How many ways there are if mere reversals and reflections are not counted as different has not yet been determined; it is a difficult problem. But this point, on a smaller square, is considered in the next puzzle.
How many ways there are if just reversals and reflections aren’t counted as different hasn’t been figured out yet; it’s a tough problem. But this point, on a smaller square, is discussed in the next puzzle.
There are only seven different ways under the conditions. They are as follows: 1 2 3 4, 1 2 4 3, 1 3 2 4, 1 3 4 2, 1 4 3 2, 2 1 4 3, 2 4 1 3. Taking the last example, this notation means that we place a lion in the second square of first row, fourth square of second row, first square of third row, and third square of fourth row. The first example is, of course, the one we gave when setting the puzzle.
There are only seven different ways under these conditions. They are: 1 2 3 4, 1 2 4 3, 1 3 2 4, 1 3 4 2, 1 4 3 2, 2 1 4 3, 2 4 1 3. Taking the last example, this means that we place a lion in the second square of the first row, the fourth square of the second row, the first square of the third row, and the third square of the fourth row. The first example is, of course, the one we provided when setting up the puzzle.

This cannot be done with fewer bishops than eight, and the simplest solution is to place the bishops in line along the fourth or fifth row of the board (see diagram). But it will be noticed that no bishop is here guarded by another, so we consider that point in the next puzzle.
This can't be done with fewer than eight bishops, and the easiest solution is to line the bishops up along the fourth or fifth row of the board (see diagram). However, it's important to note that no bishop is protected by another, so we'll address that issue in the next puzzle.

This puzzle is quite easy if you first of all give it a little thought. You need only consider squares of one colour, for whatever can be done in the case of the white squares can always be repeated on the black, and they are here quite independent of one another. This equality, of course, is in consequence of the fact that the number of squares on an ordinary chessboard, sixty-four, is an even number. If a square chequered board has an odd number of squares, then there will always be one more square of one colour than of the other.
This puzzle is pretty easy if you take a moment to think it through. You only need to focus on squares of one color because whatever you can do with the white squares can also be done with the black ones, and they function independently of each other. This equality is due to the fact that the total number of squares on a standard chessboard, sixty-four, is even. If a checkered board has an odd number of squares, there will always be one more square of one color than the other.
Ten bishops are necessary in order that every square shall be attacked and every bishop guarded by another bishop. I give one way of arranging them in the diagram. It will be noticed that the two central bishops in the group Pg 215of six on the left-hand side of the board serve no purpose, except to protect those bishops that are on adjoining squares. Another solution would therefore be obtained by simply raising the upper one of these one square and placing the other a square lower down.
Ten bishops are needed so that every square is attacked and each bishop is protected by another bishop. Here’s one way to position them in the diagram. You’ll notice that the two central bishops in the group Pg 215 of six on the left side of the board don't serve any purpose except to protect the bishops on the adjacent squares. An alternative solution could be achieved by moving the top one of these up one square and the other down one square.
The fourteen bishops may be placed in 256 different ways. But every bishop must always be placed on one of the sides of the board—that is, somewhere on a row or file on the extreme edge. The puzzle, therefore, consists in counting the number of different ways that we can arrange the fourteen round the edge of the board without attack. This is not a difficult matter. On a chessboard of n2 squares 2n - 2 bishops (the maximum number) may always be placed in 2(n) ways without attacking. On an ordinary chessboard n would be 8; therefore 14 bishops may be placed in 256 different ways. It is rather curious that the general result should come out in so simple a form.
The fourteen bishops can be arranged in 256 different ways. However, each bishop must always be positioned on one of the sides of the board—meaning it has to be placed somewhere along a row or file at the extreme edge. Thus, the challenge is to count the number of different ways we can arrange the fourteen bishops around the edge of the board without them attacking each other. This isn't too complicated. On a chessboard with n2 squares, you can always place 2n - 2 bishops (the maximum number) in 2(n) ways without them attacking. For a standard chessboard, n would be 8; therefore, 14 bishops can be positioned in 256 different ways. It's quite interesting that the overall result appears in such a straightforward form.

The solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram. It will be found that no queen attacks another, and also that no three queens are in a straight line in any oblique direction. This is the only arrangement out of the twelve fundamentally different ways of placing eight queens without attack that fulfils the last condition.
The solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram. You’ll notice that no queen attacks another, and also that no three queens are in a straight line in any diagonal direction. This is the only arrangement out of the twelve fundamentally different ways to place eight queens without any attacks that meets the last condition.
The solution of this puzzle is shown in the first diagram. It is the only possible solution within the conditions stated. But if one of the eight stars had not already been placed as shown, there would then have been eight ways of arranging the stars according to this scheme, if we count reversals and reflections as different. If you turn this page round so that each side is in turn at the bottom, you will get the four reversals; and if you reflect each of these in a mirror, you will get the four reflections. These are, therefore, merely eight aspects of one "fundamental solution." But without that first star being so placed, there is another fundamental solution, as shown in the second diagram. But this arrangement being in a way symmetrical, only produces four different aspects by reversal and reflection.
The solution to this puzzle is shown in the first diagram. It is the only possible solution given the stated conditions. However, if one of the eight stars hadn’t already been placed as shown, there would have been eight ways to arrange the stars based on this scheme, counting reversals and reflections as different. If you turn this page so that each side is at the bottom in turn, you'll see the four reversals; and if you reflect each of these in a mirror, you'll get the four reflections. Therefore, these are just eight variations of one "fundamental solution." But without that first star being placed, there is another fundamental solution, as shown in the second diagram. This arrangement is somewhat symmetrical, so it only produces four distinct variations through reversal and reflection.


Some schemes give more diagonal readings of four letters than others, and we are at first tempted to favour these; but this is a false scent, because what you appear to gain in this direction you lose in others. Of course it immediately occurs to the solver that every LIVE or EVIL is worth twice as much as any other word, since it reads both ways and always counts as 2. This is an important consideration, though sometimes those arrangements that contain most readings of these two words are fruitless in other words, and we lose in the general count.
Some systems offer more diagonal readings of four letters than others, and initially, we might be inclined to prefer these; but this is a misleading approach, because what you seem to gain in this area, you lose in others. Naturally, it quickly strikes the solver that every LIVE or EVIL is worth twice as much as any other word, since it reads both ways and always counts as 2. This is a significant point, although sometimes those setups that have the most readings of these two words end up being unproductive in other words, and we lose overall.

The above diagram is in accordance with the conditions requiring no letter to be in line with another similar letter, and it gives twenty readings of the five words—six horizontally, six vertically, four in the diagonals indicated by the arrows on the left, and four in the diagonals indicated by the arrows on the right. This is the maximum.
The diagram above meets the criteria that no letter lines up with another similar letter, and it shows twenty readings of the five words—six horizontally, six vertically, four in the diagonals pointed out by the arrows on the left, and four in the diagonals indicated by the arrows on the right. This is the maximum.
Four sets of eight letters may be placed on the board of sixty-four squares in as many as 604 different ways, without any letter ever being in line with a similar one. This does not count reversals and reflections as different, and it does not take into consideration the actual permutations of the letters among themselves; that is, for example, making the L's change places with the E's. Now it is a singular fact that not only do the twenty word-readings that I have given prove to be the real maximum, but there is actually only that one arrangement from which this maximum may be obtained. But if you make the V's change places with the I's, and the L's with the E's, in the solution given, you still get twenty readings—the same number as before in every direction. Therefore there are two ways of getting the maximum from the same arrangement. The minimum number of readings is zero—that is, the letters can be so arranged that no word can be read in any of the directions.
Four sets of eight letters can be placed on a board of sixty-four squares in as many as 604 different ways, ensuring that no letter lines up with another of the same kind. This count excludes reversals and reflections as different variations, and it doesn't consider the actual rearrangements of the letters themselves; for instance, swapping the L's with the E's. Interestingly, not only do the twenty word-readings I've provided represent the true maximum, but there is actually only one arrangement that allows for this maximum to be reached. However, if you swap the V's with the I's and the L's with the E's in the given solution, you'll still get twenty readings—the same number as before in every direction. So there are two ways to achieve the maximum from the same arrangement. The minimum number of readings is zero—that is, the letters can be arranged in such a way that no words can be read in any direction.

Let us use the letters A, K, Q, J, to denote ace, king, queen, jack; and D, S, H, C, to denote diamonds, spades, hearts, clubs. In Diagrams 1 and 2 we have the two available ways of arranging either group of letters so that no two similar letters shall be in line—though a quarter-turn of 1 will give us the arrangement in 2. If we superimpose or combine these two squares, we get the arrangement of Diagram 3, which is one solution. But in each square we may put the letters in the top line in twenty-four different ways without altering the scheme of arrangement. Thus, in Diagram 4 the S's are similarly placed to the D's in 2, the H's to the S's, the C's to the H's, and the D's to the C's. It clearly follows that there must be 24 × 24 = 576 ways of combining the two primitive arrangements. But the error that Labosne fell into was that of assuming that the A, K, Q, J must be arranged in the form 1, and the D, S, H, C in the form 2. He thus included reflections and half-turns, but not quarter-turns. They may obviously be interchanged. So that the correct answer is 2 × 576 = 1,152, counting reflections and reversals as different. Put in another manner, the pairs in the top row may be written in 16 × 9 ×4 × 1 = 576 different ways, and the square then completed in 2 ways, making 1,152 ways in all.
Let’s use the letters A, K, Q, J to represent ace, king, queen, and jack; and D, S, H, C to represent diamonds, spades, hearts, and clubs. In Diagrams 1 and 2, we see two ways to arrange either set of letters so that no two identical letters are in the same line—though a quarter-turn of 1 will result in the arrangement seen in 2. If we overlap or combine these two squares, we get the arrangement shown in Diagram 3, which represents one solution. However, in each square, we can place the letters in the top row in twenty-four different ways without changing the arrangement scheme. Therefore, in Diagram 4, the S's are positioned the same way as the D's in 2, the H's are positioned the same as the S's, the C's the same as the H's, and the D's the same as the C's. This indicates that there must be 24 × 24 = 576 ways to combine the two basic arrangements. However, Labosne made the mistake of assuming that the A, K, Q, J had to be arranged in the form 1, and the D, S, H, C in the form 2. He therefore included reflections and half-turns, but not quarter-turns. These can obviously be interchanged. Thus, the correct answer is 2 × 576 = 1,152, counting reflections and reversals as distinct. In other words, the pairs in the top row can be arranged in 16 × 9 × 4 × 1 = 576 different ways, and then the square can be completed in 2 ways, resulting in a total of 1,152 ways.
I pointed out that it was impossible to get all the letters into the box under the conditions, but the puzzle was to place as many as possible.
I mentioned that it was impossible to fit all the letters into the box given the circumstances, but the challenge was to put in as many as we could.
Pg 217This requires a little judgment and careful investigation, or we are liable to jump to the hasty conclusion that the proper way to solve the puzzle must be first to place all six of one letter, then all six of another letter, and so on. As there is only one scheme (with its reversals) for placing six similar letters so that no two shall be in a line in any direction, the reader will find that after he has placed four different kinds of letters, six times each, every place is occupied except those twelve that form the two long diagonals. He is, therefore, unable to place more than two each of his last two letters, and there are eight blanks left. I give such an arrangement in Diagram 1.
Pg 217This requires some judgment and careful checking, or we might quickly conclude that the best way to solve the puzzle is to first put all six of one letter, then all six of another, and so on. Since there's only one arrangement (along with its reversals) for placing six identical letters so that no two align in any direction, you'll notice that after placing four different types of letters, each six times, every spot is filled except for the twelve that make up the two long diagonals. Consequently, you're only able to place two of each of your last two letters, leaving eight empty spots. I provide this arrangement in Diagram 1.

The secret, however, consists in not trying thus to place all six of each letter. It will be found that if we content ourselves with placing only five of each letter, this number (thirty in all) may be got into the box, and there will be only six blanks. But the correct solution is to place six of each of two letters and five of each of the remaining four. An examination of Diagram 2 will show that there are six each of C and D, and five each of A, B, E, and F. There are, therefore, only four blanks left, and no letter is in line with a similar letter in any direction.
The secret, however, is not to try to fit all six of each letter. You'll find that if we settle for placing only five of each letter, we can get a total of thirty into the box, leaving just six blanks. But the right solution is to place six of two letters and five of the other four. If you look at Diagram 2, you'll see that there are six each of C and D, and five each of A, B, E, and F. So, there are only four blanks left, and no letter lines up with another letter of the same kind in any direction.

Here is the solution. Only 8 queens or 8 rooks can be placed on the board without attack, while the greatest number of bishops is 14, and of knights 32. But as all these knights must be placed on squares of the same colour, while the queens occupy four of each colour and the bishops 7 of each colour, it follows that only 21 knights can be placed on the same colour in this puzzle. More than 21 knights can be placed alone on the board if we use both colours, but I have not succeeded in placing more than 21 on the "crowded chessboard." I believe the above solution contains the maximum number of pieces, but possibly some ingenious reader may succeed in getting in another knight.
Here’s the solution. You can place only 8 queens or 8 rooks on the board without them attacking each other, while the maximum number of bishops is 14 and for knights, it’s 32. However, since all these knights must be placed on squares of the same color, and the queens occupy four of each color and the bishops occupy 7 of each color, it means that only 21 knights can be placed on the same color in this puzzle. You can fit more than 21 knights on the board if you use both colors, but I haven't been able to place more than 21 on the "crowded chessboard." I believe this solution has the maximum number of pieces, but maybe some clever reader can figure out how to add another knight.
The counters may be arranged in this order:—
The counters can be set up in this order:—
R1, | B2, | Y3, | O4, | GS. |
Y4, | O5, | G1, | R2, | B3. |
G2, | R3, | B4, | Y5, | O1. |
B5, | Y1, | O2, | G3, | R4. |
O3, | G4, | R5, | B1, | Y2. |
The following arrangement shows how sixteen stamps may be stuck on the card, under the conditions, of a total value of fifty pence, or 4s. 2d.:—
The following arrangement shows how sixteen stamps can be attached to the card, with a total value of fifty pence, or 4s. 2d:—

If, after placing the four 5d. stamps, the reader is tempted to place four 4d. stamps also, he can afterwards only place two of each of the three other denominations, thus losing two spaces and counting no more than forty-eight pence, or 4s. This is the pitfall that was hinted at. (Compare with No. 43, Canterbury Puzzles.)
If, after putting down the four 5d stamps, the reader is tempted to add four 4d stamps as well, they will then only be able to place two of each of the three other denominations, which results in losing two spaces and totaling no more than forty-eight pence, or 4s. This is the trap that was mentioned. (See No. 43, Canterbury Puzzles.)
The counters may be arranged in this order:—
The counters can be set up in this order:—
A1, | B2, | C3, | D4, | E5, | F6, | G7. |
F4, | G5, | A6, | B7, | C1, | D2, | E3. |
D7, | E1, | F2, | G3, | A4, | B5, | C6. |
B3, | C4, | D5, | E6, | F7, | G1, | A2. |
G6, | A7, | B1, | C2, | D3, | E4, | F5. |
E2, | F3, | G4, | A5, | B6, | C7, | D1. |
C5, | D6, | E7, | F1, | G2, | A3, | B4. |
The following table, if used with the key in Diagram 1, will enable the reader to place them in all these ways:—
The following table, when used with the key in Diagram 1, will help the reader arrange them in all these ways:—
Two Sheep. | Third Sheep. | No. of Ways. |
A and B | C, E, G, K, L, N, or P | 7 |
A and C | I, J, K, or O | 4 |
A and D | M, N, or J | 3 |
A and F | J, K, L, or P | 4 |
A and G | H, J, K, N, O, or P | 6 |
A and H | K, L, N, or O | 4 |
A and O | K or L | 2 |
B and C | N | 1 |
B and E | F, H, K, or L | 4 |
B and F | G, J, N, or O | 4 |
B and G | K, L, or N | 3 |
B and H | J or N | 2 |
B and J | K or L | 2 |
F and G | J | 1 |
47 |
This, of course, means that if you place sheep in the pens marked A and B, then there are seven different pens in which you may place the third sheep, giving seven different solutions. It was understood that reversals and reflections do not count as different.
This means that if you put sheep in the pens labeled A and B, there are seven different pens where you can place the third sheep, resulting in seven different solutions. It was agreed that reversals and reflections don’t count as different.
If one pen at least is to be not in line with a sheep, there would be thirty solutions to that problem. If we counted all the reversals and reflections of these 47 and 30 cases respectively as different, their total would be 560, which is the number of different ways in which the sheep may be placed in three pens without any conditions. I will remark that there are three ways in which two sheep may be placed so that every pen is occupied or in line, as in Diagrams 2, 3, and 4, but in every case each sheep is in line with its companion. There are only two ways in which three sheep may be so placed that every pen shall be occupied or in line, but no sheep in line with another. These I show in Diagrams 5 and 6. Finally, there is only one way in which three sheep may be placed so that at least one pen shall not be in line with a sheep and yet no sheep in line with another. Place the sheep in C, E, L. This is practically all there is to be said on this pleasant pastoral subject.
If at least one pen isn't aligned with a sheep, there would be thirty solutions to that issue. If we counted all the reversals and reflections of these 47 and 30 cases as different, the total would be 560, which is the number of ways the sheep can be placed in three pens without any conditions. I should mention that there are three ways to place two sheep so that every pen is occupied or aligned, as shown in Diagrams 2, 3, and 4, but in each case, both sheep are aligned with each other. There are only two ways to arrange three sheep so that every pen is occupied or aligned, but no sheep is aligned with another. I illustrate these in Diagrams 5 and 6. Lastly, there's only one way to position three sheep so that at least one pen isn't aligned with a sheep while ensuring no sheep is aligned with another. Place the sheep in C, E, L. That's pretty much all there is to say about this enjoyable pastoral topic.

The diagrams show four fundamentally different solutions. In the case of A we can reverse Pg 219the order, so that the single dog is in the bottom row and the other four shifted up two squares. Also we may use the next column to the right and both of the two central horizontal rows. Thus A gives 8 solutions. Then B may be reversed and placed in either diagonal, giving 4 solutions. Similarly C will give 4 solutions. The line in D being symmetrical, its reversal will not be different, but it may be disposed in 4 different directions. We thus have in all 20 different solutions.
The diagrams show four completely different solutions. For solution A, we can reverse the order, placing the single dog in the bottom row and shifting the other four up two squares. We can also use the next column to the right and both of the two central horizontal rows. This means A provides 8 solutions. Next, B can be reversed and placed in either diagonal, resulting in 4 solutions. Likewise, C will also yield 4 solutions. The line in D is symmetrical, so reversing it won’t make any difference, but it can be oriented in 4 different directions. In total, we have 20 different solutions.


If that ancient architect had arranged his five crescent tiles in the manner shown in the following diagram, every tile would have been watched over by, or in a line with, at least one crescent, and space would have been reserved for a perfectly square carpet equal in area to exactly half of the pavement. It is a very curious fact that, although there are two or three solutions allowing a carpet to be laid down within the conditions so as to cover an area of nearly twenty-nine of the tiles, this is the only possible solution giving exactly half the area of the pavement, which is the largest space obtainable.
If that ancient architect had arranged his five crescent tiles in the way shown in the diagram below, each tile would have been covered by, or aligned with, at least one crescent, and there would have been enough space for a perfectly square carpet that equals exactly half the area of the pavement. It's interesting to note that, while there are a couple of solutions that allow for placing a carpet that covers nearly twenty-nine of the tiles, this is the only solution that provides exactly half the area of the pavement, which is the largest space possible.

The bishop is on the square originally occupied by the rook, and the four queens are so placed that every square is either occupied or attacked by a piece. (Fig. 1.)
The bishop is on the square where the rook used to be, and the four queens are positioned so that every square is either occupied or attacked by a piece. (Fig. 1.)

I pointed out in 1899 that if four queens are placed as shown in the diagram (Fig. 2), then the fifth queen may be placed on any one of the twelve squares marked a, b, c, d, and e; or a rook on the two squares, c; or a bishop on the eight squares, a, b, and e; or a pawn on Pg 220the square b; or a king on the four squares, b, c, and e. The only known arrangement for four queens and a knight is that given by Mr. J. Wallis in The Strand Magazine for August 1908, here reproduced. (Fig. 3.)
I mentioned in 1899 that if four queens are positioned as shown in the diagram (Fig. 2), then the fifth queen can be placed on any of the twelve squares labeled a, b, c, d, and e; or a rook on the two squares, c; or a bishop on the eight squares, a, b, and e; or a pawn on Pg 220the square b; or a king on the four squares, b, c, and e. The only known arrangement for four queens and a knight is the one provided by Mr. J. Wallis in The Strand Magazine for August 1908, which is reproduced here. (Fig. 3.)

I have recorded a large number of solutions with four queens and a rook, or bishop, but the only arrangement, I believe, with three queens and two rooks in which all the pieces are guarded is that of which I give an illustration (Fig. 4), first published by Dr. C. Planck. But I have since found the accompanying solution with three queens, a rook, and a bishop, though the pieces do not protect one another. (Fig. 5.)
I’ve documented a lot of solutions using four queens and a rook or bishop, but the only setup I think has three queens and two rooks where all the pieces are guarded is the one I illustrated (Fig. 4), originally published by Dr. C. Planck. However, I’ve since discovered the solution shown with three queens, a rook, and a bishop, even though the pieces don’t protect each other. (Fig. 5.)


My readers have been so familiarized with the fact that it requires at least five planets to attack every one of a square arrangement of sixty-four stars that many of them have, perhaps, got to believe that a larger square arrangement of stars must need an increase of planets. It was to correct this possible error of reasoning, and so warn readers against another of those numerous little pitfalls in the world of puzzledom, that I devised this new stellar problem. Let me then state at once that, in the case of a square arrangement of eighty one stars, there are several ways of placing five planets so that every star shall be in line with at least one planet vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Here is the solution to the "Southern Cross": —
My readers are so accustomed to the idea that it takes at least five planets to cover each star in a square grid of sixty-four stars that many of them might have come to believe that a larger grid of stars would require more planets. To correct this possible misunderstanding and to alert readers to one of the many traps in the world of puzzles, I came up with this new stellar problem. So, let me clarify right away that, in a square grid of eighty-one stars, there are several ways to position five planets so that every star aligns with at least one planet either vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Here is the solution to the "Southern Cross": —

The moves will be made quite clear by a reference to the diagrams, which show the position on the board after each of the four moves. The darts indicate the successive removals that have been made. It will be seen that at every stage all the squares are either attacked or occupied, and that after the fourth move no queen attacks any other. In the case of the last move the queen in the top row might also have been moved one square farther to the left. This is, I believe, the only solution to the puzzle.
The moves will be clearly illustrated by referring to the diagrams, which display the position on the board after each of the four moves. The darts indicate the series of removals that have occurred. It will be noticed that at every stage, all the squares are either attacked or occupied, and after the fourth move, no queen attacks another. In the case of the last move, the queen in the top row could also have been moved one square further to the left. This, I believe, is the only solution to the puzzle.

It will be seen that only three queens have been removed from their positions on the edge of the board, and that, as a consequence, eleven squares (indicated by the black dots) are left unattacked by any queen. I will hazard the statement that eight queens cannot be placed on the chessboard so as to leave more than eleven squares unattacked. It is true that we have no rigid proof of this yet, but I have Pg 222entirely convinced myself of the truth of the statement. There are at least five different ways of arranging the queens so as to leave eleven squares unattacked.
It can be observed that only three queens have been taken off their positions on the edge of the board, and as a result, eleven squares (marked by the black dots) remain unattacked by any queen. I will venture to claim that eight queens cannot be arranged on the chessboard in a way that leaves more than eleven squares unattacked. While we don’t have a strict proof for this yet, I am Pg 222completely convinced of the truth of this statement. There are at least five different ways to position the queens so that eleven squares remain unattacked.

Sixteen pawns may be placed so that no three shall be in a straight line in any possible direction, as in the diagram. We regard, as the conditions required, the pawns as mere points on a plane.
Sixteen pawns can be arranged so that no three are in a straight line in any direction, as shown in the diagram. We treat the pawns as just points on a flat surface according to the required conditions.

There are 6,480 ways of placing the man and the lion, if there are no restrictions whatever except that they must be on different spots. This is obvious, because the man may be placed on any one of the 81 spots, and in every case there are 80 spots remaining for the lion; therefore 81 × 80 = 6,480. Now, if we deduct the number of ways in which the lion and the man may be placed on the same path, the result must be the number of ways in which they will not be on the same path. The number of ways in which they may be in line is found without much difficulty to be 816. Consequently, 6,480 - 816 = 5,664, the required answer.
There are 6,480 ways to place the man and the lion if there are no restrictions besides them needing to be on different spots. This is clear because the man can be placed on any one of the 81 spots, and for each of those, there are 80 remaining spots for the lion. So, 81 × 80 = 6,480. Now, if we subtract the number of ways the lion and the man can be on the same path, we'll find the number of ways they can be on different paths. The ways they can line up is easily calculated to be 816. Therefore, 6,480 - 816 = 5,664, which is the answer we need.
The general solution is this: 1/3n(n - 1) (3n2 - n + 2). This is, of course, equivalent to saying that if we call the number of squares on the side of a "chessboard" n, then the formula shows the number of ways in which two bishops may be placed without attacking one another. Only in this case we must divide by two, because the two bishops have no distinct individuality, and cannot produce a different solution by mere exchange of places.
The general solution is this: 1/3n(n - 1) (3n2 - n + 2). This means that if we let the number of squares on the side of a "chessboard" be n, then the formula gives the number of ways to position two bishops so that they don’t attack each other. However, we need to divide by two in this case because the two bishops are identical and swapping their positions doesn’t create a new solution.


The smallest possible number of knights with which this puzzle can be solved is fourteen.
The smallest possible number of knights needed to solve this puzzle is fourteen.
Pg 223It has sometimes been assumed that there are a great many different solutions. As a matter of fact, there are only three arrangements—not counting mere reversals and reflections as different. Curiously enough, nobody seems ever to have hit on the following simple proof, or to have thought of dealing with the black and the white squares separately.
Pg 223People often think there are many different solutions. In reality, there are just three arrangements—not counting simple reversals and reflections as different. Interestingly, no one seems to have come up with the following straightforward proof or considered looking at the black and white squares separately.



Seven knights can be placed on the board on white squares so as to attack every black square in two ways only. These are shown in Diagrams 1 and 2. Note that three knights occupy the same position in both arrangements. It is therefore clear that if we turn the board so that a black square shall be in the top left-hand corner instead of a white, and place the knights in exactly the same positions, we shall have two similar ways of attacking all the white squares. I will assume the reader has made the two last described diagrams on transparent paper, and marked them 1a and 2a. Now, by placing the transparent Diagram 1a over 1 you will be able to obtain the solution in Diagram 3, by placing 2a over 2 you will get Diagram 4, and by placing 2a over 1 you will get Diagram 5. You may now try all possible combinations of those two pairs of diagrams, but you will only get the three arrangements I have given, or their reversals and reflections. Therefore these three solutions are all that exist.
Seven knights can be placed on the board on white squares so that they attack every black square in only two ways. These are illustrated in Diagrams 1 and 2. Note that three knights occupy the same position in both setups. It’s clear that if we rotate the board so that a black square is in the top left corner instead of a white one, and place the knights in the same positions, we will have two corresponding ways of attacking all the white squares. I’ll assume you’ve made the last two diagrams on transparent paper and labeled them 1a and 2a. Now, by placing the transparent Diagram 1a over Diagram 1, you can find the solution in Diagram 3; by placing 2a over Diagram 2, you will get Diagram 4; and by placing 2a over Diagram 1, you will obtain Diagram 5. You can now try all possible combinations of those two pairs of diagrams, but you will only get the three arrangements I’ve provided, or their reversals and reflections. Therefore, these three solutions are all that exist.

The only possible minimum solutions are shown in the two diagrams, where it will be seen that only sixteen moves are required to perform the feat. Most people find it difficult to reduce the number of moves below seventeen.
The only potential minimum solutions are illustrated in the two diagrams, where it's clear that only sixteen moves are needed to accomplish the task. Most people struggle to bring the number of moves down to less than seventeen.


I show the route in the diagram. It will be seen that the tenth move lands us at the square marked "10," and that the last move, the twenty-first, brings us to a halt on square "21."
I show the route in the diagram. You can see that the tenth move lands us on the square labeled "10," and that the last move, the twenty-first, brings us to a stop on square "21."
The dotted line shows the route in twenty-two straight paths by which the knight may rescue the maiden. It is necessary, after entering the first cell, immediately to return before entering another. Otherwise a solution would not be possible. (See "The Grand Tour," p. 200.)
The dotted line shows the route in twenty-two straight paths that the knight can take to rescue the maiden. After entering the first cell, it's crucial to go back right away before entering another one. Otherwise, finding a solution won't be possible. (See "The Grand Tour," p. 200.)

If the prisoner takes the route shown in the diagram—where for clearness the doorways are omitted—he will succeed in visiting every cell once, and only once, in as many as fifty-seven straight lines. No rook's path over the chessboard can exceed this number of moves.
If the prisoner follows the path shown in the diagram—where the doorways are left out for clarity—he will be able to visit every cell one time only, using up to fifty-seven straight lines. No rook can move more than this number of moves on the chessboard.

First of all, the fewest possible straight lines in each case are twenty-two, and in order that no cell may be visited twice it is absolutely necessary that each should pass into one cell and then immediately "visit" the one from which he started, afterwards proceeding by way of the second available cell. In the following diagram the man's route is indicated by the unbroken lines, and the lion's by the dotted lines. It will be found, if the two routes are followed cell by cell with two pencil points, that the lion and the man never meet. But there was one little point that ought not to be overlooked—"they occasionally got glimpses of one another." Now, if we take one route for the Pg 225man and merely reverse it for the lion, we invariably find that, going at the same speed, they never get a glimpse of one another. But in our diagram it will be found that the man and the lion are in the cells marked A at the same moment, and may see one another through the open doorways; while the same happens when they are in the two cells marked B, the upper letters indicating the man and the lower the lion. In the first case the lion goes straight for the man, while the man appears to attempt to get in the rear of the lion; in the second case it looks suspiciously like running away from one another!
First of all, the fewest number of straight lines in each situation is twenty-two, and to ensure that no cell is visited twice, it's essential that each path enters one cell, then immediately returns to the cell it started from, before moving on to the next available cell. In the diagram below, the man’s route is shown with solid lines, and the lion's with dotted lines. If you trace both routes cell by cell with two pencil points, you'll see that the lion and the man never cross paths. However, there's a small detail that shouldn’t be overlooked—"they occasionally caught sight of each other." Now, if we take one route for the Pg 225man and simply reverse it for the lion, we consistently find that, when moving at the same speed, they don’t see each other at all. Yet, in our diagram, it shows that both the man and the lion are in the cells marked A at the same time and can see each other through the open doorways; the same occurs when they are in the two cells marked B, with the top letters indicating the man and the bottom letters indicating the lion. In the first scenario, the lion heads straight for the man, while the man seems to try to sneak up behind the lion; in the second scenario, it suspiciously looks like they are running away from each other!


In the diagram I show how the bishop may be made to visit every one of his white parishes in seventeen moves. It is obvious that we must start from one corner square and end at the one that is diagonally opposite to it. The puzzle cannot be solved in fewer than seventeen moves.
In the diagram, I illustrate how the bishop can visit all of his white squares in seventeen moves. It's clear that we have to start from one corner square and finish at the diagonally opposite one. This puzzle cannot be solved in less than seventeen moves.
Play as follows: 2—3, 9—4, 10—7, 3—8, 4—2, 7—5, 8—6, 5—10, 6—9, 2—5, 1—6, 6—4, 5—3, 10—8, 4—7, 3—2, 8—1, 7—10. The white counters have now changed places with the red ones, in eighteen moves, without breaking the conditions.
Play as follows: 2—3, 9—4, 10—7, 3—8, 4—2, 7—5, 8—6, 5—10, 6—9, 2—5, 1—6, 6—4, 5—3, 10—8, 4—7, 3—2, 8—1, 7—10. The white pieces have now swapped places with the red ones, in eighteen moves, without breaking any rules.

Play as follows, using the notation indicated by the numbered squares in Diagram A:—
Play as shown, following the notation indicated by the numbered squares in Diagram A:—
White. | Black. |
1. 18—15 | 1. 3—6 |
2. 17—8 | 2. 4—13 |
3. 19—14 | 3. 2—7 |
4. 15—5 | 4. 6—16 |
5. 8—3 | 5. 13-18 |
6. 14—9 | 6. 7—12 |
7. 5—10 | 7. 16-11 |
8. 9—19 | 8. 12—2 |
9. 10—4 | 9. 11-17 |
10. 20—10 | 10. 1—11 |
11. 3—9 | 11. 18—12 |
12. 10—13 | 12. 11—8 |
13. 19—16 | 13. 2—5 |
14. 16—1 | 14. 5—20 |
15. 9—6 | 15. 12—15 |
16. 13-7 | 16. 8—14 |
17. 6—3 | 17. 15-18 |
18. 7—2 | 18. 14—19 |
Diagram B shows the position after the ninth move. Bishops at 1 and 20 have not yet moved, but 2 and 19 have sallied forth and returned. In the end, 1 and 19, 2 and 20, 3 and 17, and 4 and 18 will have exchanged places. Note the position after the thirteenth move.
Diagram B shows the position after the ninth move. Bishops at 1 and 20 have not moved yet, but 2 and 19 have ventured out and come back. In the end, 1 and 19, 2 and 20, 3 and 17, and 4 and 18 will have swapped places. Check out the position after the thirteenth move.

Pg 226The annexed diagram shows a second way of performing the Queen's Tour. If you break the line at the point J and erase the shorter portion of that line, you will have the required path solution for any J square. If you break the line at I, you will have a non-re-entrant solution starting from any I square. And if you break the line at G, you will have a solution for any G square. The Queen's Tour previously given may be similarly broken at three different places, but I seized the opportunity of exhibiting a second tour.
Pg 226The diagram attached shows a second method for completing the Queen's Tour. If you cut the line at point J and remove the shorter part of that line, you'll have the required path solution for any J square. If you cut the line at I, you'll get a non-re-entrant solution starting from any I square. And if you cut the line at G, you'll have a solution for any G square. The previous Queen's Tour can also be divided at three different points, but I took the chance to present a second tour.
The illustration explains itself. The stars are all struck out in fourteen straight strokes, starting and ending at a white star.
The illustration speaks for itself. The stars are all crossed out in fourteen straight lines, beginning and ending at a white star.

The diagram explains itself. The numbers will show the direction of the lines in their proper order, and it will be seen that the seventh course ends at the flag-buoy, as stipulated.
The diagram is clear. The numbers indicate the direction of the lines in the correct order, and you'll see that the seventh course finishes at the flag-buoy, as specified.

In this case we go beyond the boundary of the square. Apart from that, the moves are all queen moves. There are three or four ways in which it can be done.
In this case, we go beyond the limits of the square. Other than that, all the moves are queen moves. There are three or four ways to do it.
Here is one way of performing the feat:—
Here’s one way to achieve the task:—

It will be seen that the skater strikes out all the stars in one continuous journey of fourteen straight lines, returning to the point from which he started. To follow the skater's course in the diagram it is necessary always to go as far as we can in a straight line before turning.
It can be observed that the skater creates a path that connects all the stars in one uninterrupted journey of fourteen straight lines, coming back to the starting point. To trace the skater's route in the diagram, we need to always go as far as possible in a straight line before making a turn.
The illustration shows how all the stars may be struck out in twelve straight strokes, beginning and ending at a black star.
The illustration shows how all the stars can be removed in twelve straight strokes, starting and ending at a black star.

The correct solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram by the dark line. The five moves indicated will take the queen the greatest distance that it is possible for her to go in five moves, within the conditions. The dotted line shows the route that most people suggest, but it is not quite so long as the other. Let us assume that the distance from the centre of any square to the centre of the next in the same horizontal or vertical line is 2 inches, and that the queen travels from the centre of her original square to the centre of the one at which she rests. Then the first route will be found to exceed 67.9 inches, while the dotted route is less than 67.8 inches. The difference is small, but it is sufficient to settle the point as to the longer route. All other routes are shorter still than these two.
The correct solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram by the dark line. The five moves indicated will take the queen the greatest distance she can travel in five moves, given the conditions. The dotted line shows the route that most people suggest, but it's not quite as long as the other one. Let’s assume that the distance from the center of any square to the center of the next one in the same horizontal or vertical line is 2 inches, and that the queen moves from the center of her original square to the center of the square where she ends up. Then the first route will be found to exceed 67.9 inches, while the dotted route is less than 67.8 inches. The difference is small, but it's enough to determine the longer route. All other routes are even shorter than these two.

We select for the solution of this puzzle one of the prettiest designs that can be formed by representing the moves of the knight by lines from square to square. The chequering of the squares is omitted to give greater clearness. St. George thus slays the Dragon in strict accordance with the conditions and in the elegant manner we should expect of him.
We choose one of the most beautiful designs for solving this puzzle, representing the knight's moves with lines connecting square to square. The checkerboard pattern is left out for better clarity. St. George defeats the Dragon in strict accordance with the rules and in the classy way we would expect from him.

There are numerous solutions to this little agricultural problem. The version I give in the next column is rather curious on account of the long parallel straight lines formed by some of the moves.
There are many solutions to this small agricultural issue. The version I present in the next column is quite interesting because of the long, straight parallel lines created by some of the moves.

There are several interesting points involved in this question. In the first place, if we had made no stipulation as to the positions of the two ends of the string, it is quite impossible to form any such string unless we begin and end in the top and bottom row of kennels. We may begin in the top row and end in the bottom (or, of course, the reverse), or we may begin in one of these rows and end in the same. But we can never begin or end in one of the two central rows. Our places of starting and ending, however, were fixed for us. Yet the first half of our route must be confined entirely to those squares that are distinguished in the following diagram by circles, and the second half will therefore be confined to the squares that are not circled. The squares reserved for the two half-strings will be seen to be symmetrical and similar.
There are several interesting points related to this question. First of all, if we hadn’t set specific positions for the two ends of the string, it would be impossible to form such a string unless we start and end in the top and bottom rows of kennels. We can start in the top row and end in the bottom (or the other way around), or we can start and end in the same row. But we can never start or end in one of the two central rows. However, our starting and ending points were predetermined. The first half of our route must be limited to the squares highlighted by circles in the following diagram, while the second half will be restricted to the squares that aren’t circled. The squares allocated for the two half-strings will be symmetrical and similar.
The next point is that the first half-string must end in one of the central rows, and the Pg 228second half-string must begin in one of these rows. This is now obvious, because they have to link together to form the complete string, and every square on an outside row is connected by a knight's move with similar squares only—that is, circled or non-circled as the case may be. The half-strings can, therefore, only be linked in the two central rows.
The next point is that the first half-string must end in one of the central rows, and the Pg 228second half-string must start in one of these rows. This is now clear, because they need to connect to form the complete string, and every square on an outside row is only connected by a knight's move to similar squares—that is, circled or non-circled, depending on the situation. The half-strings can, therefore, only be linked in the two central rows.

Now, there are just eight different first half-strings, and consequently also eight second half-strings. We shall see that these combine to form twelve complete strings, which is the total number that exist and the correct solution of our puzzle. I do not propose to give all the routes at length, but I will so far indicate them that if the reader has dropped any he will be able to discover which they are and work them out for himself without any difficulty. The following numbers apply to those in the above diagram.
Now, there are only eight different first half-strings, and therefore, there are also eight second half-strings. We will see that these combine to create twelve complete strings, which is the total number that exist and the correct solution to our puzzle. I don't intend to explain all the routes in detail, but I'll indicate them enough so that if the reader has missed any, they can easily identify and figure them out on their own. The following numbers correspond to those in the diagram above.
The eight first half-strings are: 1 to 6 (2 routes); 1 to 8 (1 route); 1 to 10 (3 routes); 1 to 12 (1 route); and 1 to 14 (1 route). The eight second half-strings are: 7 to 20 (1 route); 9 to 20 (1 route); 11 to 20 (3 routes); 13 to 20 (1 route); and 15 to 20 (2 routes). Every different way in which you can link one half-string to another gives a different solution. These linkings will be found to be as follows: 6 to 13 (2 cases); 10 to 13 (3 cases); 8 to 11 (3 cases); 8 to 15 (2 cases); 12 to 9 (1 case); and 14 to 7 (1 case). There are, therefore, twelve different linkings and twelve different answers to the puzzle. The route given in the illustration with the greyhound will be found to consist of one of the three half-strings 1 to 10, linked to the half-string 13 to 20. It should be noted that ten of the solutions are produced by five distinctive routes and their reversals—that is, if you indicate these five routes by lines and then turn the diagrams upside down you will get the five other routes. The remaining two solutions are symmetrical (these are the cases where 12 to 9 and 14 to 7 are the links), and consequently they do not produce new solutions by reversal.
The eight first half-strings are: 1 to 6 (2 routes); 1 to 8 (1 route); 1 to 10 (3 routes); 1 to 12 (1 route); and 1 to 14 (1 route). The eight second half-strings are: 7 to 20 (1 route); 9 to 20 (1 route); 11 to 20 (3 routes); 13 to 20 (1 route); and 15 to 20 (2 routes). Each different way to connect one half-string to another results in a different solution. The connections will be found as follows: 6 to 13 (2 cases); 10 to 13 (3 cases); 8 to 11 (3 cases); 8 to 15 (2 cases); 12 to 9 (1 case); and 14 to 7 (1 case). Therefore, there are twelve different connections and twelve different answers to the puzzle. The route shown in the illustration with the greyhound will consist of one of the three half-strings 1 to 10, linked to the half-string 13 to 20. It’s important to note that ten of the solutions arise from five distinct routes and their reversals—that is, if you mark these five routes with lines and then flip the diagrams upside down, you will get the five other routes. The remaining two solutions are symmetrical (these are the cases where 12 to 9 and 14 to 7 are the links), and as a result, they do not produce new solutions when reversed.

A pretty symmetrical solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram. Each of the four kangaroos makes his little excursion and returns to his corner, without ever entering a square that has been visited by another kangaroo and without crossing the central line. It will at once occur to the reader, as a possible improvement of the puzzle, to divide the board by a central vertical line and make the condition that this also shall not be crossed. This would mean that each kangaroo had to confine himself to a square 4 by 4, but it would be quite impossible, as I shall explain in the next two puzzles.
A neat, balanced solution to this puzzle is shown in the diagram. Each of the four kangaroos takes its little adventure and returns to its corner, without ever stepping into a square that another kangaroo has already visited and without crossing the central line. It might immediately strike the reader, as a possible enhancement to the puzzle, to divide the board with a central vertical line and add the condition that this too must not be crossed. This would mean that each kangaroo would have to stay within a 4 by 4 square, but this would be impossible, as I will explain in the next two puzzles.

In attempting to solve this problem it is first necessary to take the two distinctive compartments of twenty and twelve squares respectively and analyse them with a view to deterPg 229mining where the necessary points of entry and exit lie. In the case of the larger compartment it will be found that to complete a tour of it we must begin and end on two of the outside squares on the long sides. But though you may start at any one of these ten squares, you are restricted as to those at which you can end, or (which is the same thing) you may end at whichever of these you like, provided you begin your tour at certain particular squares. In the case of the smaller compartment you are compelled to begin and end at one of the six squares lying at the two narrow ends of the compartments, but similar restrictions apply as in the other instance. A very little thought will show that in the case of the two small compartments you must begin and finish at the ends that lie together, and it then follows that the tours in the larger compartments must also start and end on the contiguous sides.
To solve this problem, we first need to take the two distinct sections of twenty and twelve squares each and analyze them to identify where the necessary entry and exit points are. For the larger section, you'll find that to complete a circuit, you must start and finish on two of the outer squares along the long sides. While you can begin at any of these ten squares, there are limitations on where you can end. Essentially, you can finish at any of these squares as long as you start at specific ones. In the smaller section, you must start and finish at one of the six squares located at the two narrower ends, but similar restrictions apply. A little thought will reveal that for the two smaller sections, you have to start and end at the ends that are adjacent, which means that the circuits in the larger sections must also start and finish on the adjacent sides.
In the diagram given of one of the possible solutions it will be seen that there are eight places at which we may start this particular tour; but there is only one route in each case, because we must complete the compartment in which we find ourself before passing into another. In any solution we shall find that the squares distinguished by stars must be entering or exit points, but the law of reversals leaves us the option of making the other connections either at the diamonds or at the circles. In the solution worked out the diamonds are used, but other variations occur in which the circle squares are employed instead. I think these remarks explain all the essential points in the puzzle, which is distinctly instructive and interesting.
In the diagram of one possible solution, you can see that there are eight starting points for this particular tour; however, there is only one route for each starting point because we have to finish the compartment we’re in before moving on to another. In any solution, the squares marked with stars must be entry or exit points, but the reversal rule allows us to make other connections at either the diamonds or the circles. In the worked-out solution, diamonds are used, but there are other variations where the circle squares are used instead. I believe these comments cover all the key points of the puzzle, which is clearly both educational and engaging.

It will be seen in the illustration how a chessboard may be divided into four parts, each of the same size and shape, so that a complete re-entrant knight's tour may be made on each portion. There is only one possible route for each knight and its reversal.
It can be seen in the illustration how a chessboard can be divided into four equal parts, each the same size and shape, allowing for a complete re-entrant knight's tour on each section. There's only one possible route for each knight and its reverse.

If the reader should cut out the above diagram, fold it in the form of a cube, and stick it together by the strips left for that purpose at the edges, he would have an interesting little curiosity. Or he can make one on a larger scale for himself. It will be found that if we imagine the cube to have a complete chessboard on each of its sides, we may start with the knight on any one of the 384 squares, and make a complete tour of the cube, always returning to the starting-point. The method of passing from one side of the cube to another is easily understood, but, of course, the difficulty consisted in finding the proper points of entry and exit on each board, the order in which the different boards should be taken, and in getting arrangements that would comply with the required conditions.
If the reader cuts out the diagram above, folds it into a cube, and sticks it together using the strips left for that purpose on the edges, they will have a fascinating little object. Alternatively, they can create a larger version for themselves. It turns out that if we imagine the cube having a complete chessboard on each side, we can start with the knight on any of the 384 squares and make a complete tour of the cube, always returning to the starting point. The way to move from one side of the cube to another is easy to understand, but the challenge lies in figuring out the right entry and exit points on each board, the order in which to tackle the different boards, and arranging them in a way that meets the required conditions.
The fewest possible moves, counting every move separately, are sixteen. But the puzzle may be solved in seven plays, as follows, if any number of successive moves by one frog count as a single play. All the moves contained within a bracket are a single play; the numbers refer to the toadstools: (1—5), (3—7, 7—1), (8—4, 4—3, 3—7), (6—2, 2—8, 8—4, 4—3), (5—6, 6—2, 2—8), (1—5, 5—6), (7—1).
The minimum number of moves, counting each move individually, is sixteen. However, the puzzle can be solved in seven plays if any number of consecutive moves by one frog counts as a single play. All the moves in a bracket are a single play; the numbers refer to the toadstools: (1—5), (3—7, 7—1), (8—4, 4—3, 3—7), (6—2, 2—8, 8—4, 4—3), (5—6, 6—2, 2—8), (1—5, 5—6), (7—1).
This is the familiar old puzzle by Guarini, propounded in 1512, and I give it here in order to explain my "buttons and string" method of solving this class of moving-counter problem.
This is the well-known old puzzle by Guarini, presented in 1512, and I'm sharing it here to explain my "buttons and string" method for solving this type of moving-counter problem.
Pg 230Diagram A shows the old way of presenting Guarini's puzzle, the point being to make the white knights change places with the black ones. In "The Four Frogs" presentation of the idea the possible directions of the moves are indicated by lines, to obviate the necessity of the reader's understanding the nature of the knight's move in chess. But it will at once be seen that the two problems are identical. The central square can, of course, be ignored, since no knight can ever enter it. Now, regard the toadstools as buttons and the connecting lines as strings, as in Diagram B. Then by disentangling these strings we can clearly present the diagram in the form shown in Diagram C, where the relationship between the buttons is precisely the same as in B. Any solution on C will be applicable to B, and to A. Place your white knights on 1 and 3 and your black knights on 6 and 8 in the C diagram, and the simplicity of the solution will be very evident. You have simply to move the knights round the circle in one direction or the other. Play over the moves given above, and you will find that every little difficulty has disappeared.
Pg 230Diagram A shows the traditional way of presenting Guarini's puzzle, which involves making the white knights switch places with the black knights. In the "Four Frogs" version, the possible movement directions are marked with lines to avoid needing the reader to know how a knight moves in chess. However, it’s clear that both problems are the same. The central square can be ignored since no knight can ever go into it. Now, think of the toadstools as buttons and the connecting lines as strings, like in Diagram B. By untangling these strings, we can clearly show the diagram as seen in Diagram C, where the relationship between the buttons is exactly the same as in B. Any solution in C will also work for B and A. Place your white knights on 1 and 3 and black knights on 6 and 8 in the C diagram, and the simplicity of the solution will become obvious. You just need to move the knights around the circle in one direction or the other. Go through the moves mentioned above, and you’ll see that every little difficulty has vanished.

In Diagram D I give another familiar puzzle that first appeared in a book published in Brussels in 1789, Les Petites Aventures de Jerome Sharp. Place seven counters on seven of the eight points in the following manner. You must always touch a point that is vacant with a counter, and then move it along a straight line leading from that point to the next vacant point (in either direction), where you deposit the counter. You proceed in the same way until all the counters are placed. Remember you always touch a vacant place and slide the counter from it to the next place, which must be also vacant. Now, by the "buttons and string" method of simplification we can transform the diagram into E. Then the solution becomes obvious. "Always move to the point that you last moved from." This is not, of course, the only way of placing the counters, but it is the simplest solution to carry in the mind.
In Diagram D, I present another well-known puzzle that first appeared in a book published in Brussels in 1789, Les Petites Aventures de Jerome Sharp. Place seven counters on seven of the eight points as follows. You must always touch a vacant point with a counter and then move it in a straight line to the next vacant point (in either direction), where you will drop the counter. You continue this process until all the counters are placed. Remember to always touch an empty spot and slide the counter from it to the next spot, which must also be empty. Now, by using the "buttons and string" method for simplification, we can transform the diagram into E. Then the solution will be clear. "Always move to the point you just moved from." This is not the only way to arrange the counters, but it’s the simplest solution to remember.
There are several puzzles in this book that the reader will find lend themselves readily to this method.
There are several puzzles in this book that the reader will find are well-suited for this method.
The rather perplexing point that the solver has to decide for himself in attacking this puzzle is whether the shaded numbers (those that are shown in their right places) are mere dummies or not. Ninety-nine persons out of a hundred might form the opinion that there can be no advantage in moving any of them, but if so they would be wrong.
The somewhat confusing issue that the solver needs to figure out when tackling this puzzle is whether the shaded numbers (those that are shown in their correct spots) are just placeholders or not. Ninety-nine out of a hundred people might think there’s no benefit in moving any of them, but if that’s the case, they’d be mistaken.
The shortest solution without moving any shaded number is in thirty-two moves. But the puzzle can be solved in thirty moves. The trick lies in moving the 6, or the 15, on the second move and replacing it on the nineteenth move. Here is the solution: 2, 6, 13, 4, 1, 21, 4, 1, 10, 2, 21, 10, 2, 5, 22, 16, 1, 13, 6, 19, 11, 2, 5, 22, 16, 5, 13, 4, 10, 21. Thirty moves.
The quickest solution without shifting any shaded numbers takes thirty-two moves. However, the puzzle can actually be solved in thirty moves. The key is to move the 6 or the 15 on the second move and put it back on the nineteenth move. Here’s the solution: 2, 6, 13, 4, 1, 21, 4, 1, 10, 2, 21, 10, 2, 5, 22, 16, 1, 13, 6, 19, 11, 2, 5, 22, 16, 5, 13, 4, 10, 21. Thirty moves.
There are eighty different arrangements of the numbers in the form of a perfect knight's path, but only forty of these can be reached without two men ever being in a cell at the same time. Two is the greatest number of men that can be given a complete rest, and though the Pg 231knight's path can be arranged so as to leave either 7 and 13, 8 and 13, 5 and 7, or 5 and 13 in their original positions, the following four arrangements, in which 7 and 13 are unmoved, are the only ones that can be reached under the moving conditions. It therefore resolves itself into finding the fewest possible moves that will lead up to one of these positions. This is certainly no easy matter, and no rigid rules can be laid down for arriving at the correct answer. It is largely a matter for individual judgment, patient experiment, and a sharp eye for revolutions and position.
There are eighty different ways to arrange the numbers in the pattern of a perfect knight's path, but only forty of these can be achieved without two pieces ever occupying the same square at the same time. Two is the maximum number of pieces that can take a complete break, and although the Pg 231knight's path can be set up to keep either 7 and 13, 8 and 13, 5 and 7, or 5 and 13 in their original spots, the following four setups, where 7 and 13 stay in place, are the only ones that can be reached under the movement rules. Therefore, it comes down to finding the fewest moves that will lead to one of these positions. This is certainly no simple task, and no strict guidelines can be established for finding the right answer. It mainly depends on personal judgment, careful experimentation, and a keen eye for changes and arrangement.

As a matter of fact, the position C can be reached in as few as sixty-six moves in the following manner: 12, 11, 15, 12, 11, 8, 4, 3, 2, 6, 5, 1, 6, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 12, 11, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 6, 1, 8, 4, 9, 8, 1, 6, 4, 9, 12, 2, 5, 10, 15, 4, 9, 12, 2, 5, 3, 11, 14, 2, 5, 14, 11 = 66 moves. Though this is the shortest that I know of, and I do not think it can be beaten, I cannot state positively that there is not a shorter way yet to be discovered. The most tempting arrangement is certainly A; but things are not what they seem, and C is really the easiest to reach.
Actually, you can get to position C in as few as sixty-six moves like this: 12, 11, 15, 12, 11, 8, 4, 3, 2, 6, 5, 1, 6, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 8, 4, 12, 11, 3, 2, 5, 10, 15, 6, 1, 8, 4, 9, 8, 1, 6, 4, 9, 12, 2, 5, 10, 15, 4, 9, 12, 2, 5, 3, 11, 14, 2, 5, 14, 11 = 66 moves. While this is the shortest route I know of, and I don't think it can be improved upon, I can't say for sure that there isn't a shorter method waiting to be found. The most appealing setup is definitely A; however, things aren't always what they appear, and C is actually the easiest to get to.
If the bottom left-hand corner cell might be left vacant, the following is a solution in forty-five moves by Mr. R. Elrick: 15, 11, 10, 9, 13, 14, 11, 10, 7, 8, 4, 3, 8, 6, 9, 7, 12, 4, 6, 9, 5, 13, 7, 5, 13, 1, 2, 13, 5, 7, 1, 2, 13, 8, 3, 6, 9, 12, 7, 11, 14, 1, 11, 14, 1. But every man has moved.
If the bottom left corner cell can be left empty, here’s a solution in forty-five moves by Mr. R. Elrick: 15, 11, 10, 9, 13, 14, 11, 10, 7, 8, 4, 3, 8, 6, 9, 7, 12, 4, 6, 9, 5, 13, 7, 5, 13, 1, 2, 13, 5, 7, 1, 2, 13, 8, 3, 6, 9, 12, 7, 11, 14, 1, 11, 14, 1. But everyone has moved.
The first point is to make a choice of the most promising knight's string and then consider the question of reaching the arrangement in the fewest moves. I am strongly of opinion that the best string is the one represented in the following diagram, in which it will be seen that each successive number is a knight's move from the preceding one, and that five of the dogs (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20) never leave their original kennels.
The first point is to choose the most promising knight's string and then think about how to achieve the arrangement in the fewest moves. I firmly believe that the best string is the one shown in the following diagram, where it's clear that each successive number is a knight's move from the one before it, and five of the dogs (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20) never leave their original kennels.

This position may be arrived at in as few as forty-six moves, as follows: 16—21, 16—22, 16—23, 17—16, 12—17, 12—22, 12—21,7—12, 7—17, 7—22, 11—12, 11—17, 2—7, 2—12, 6—11, 8—7, 8—6, 13—8, 18—13, 11—18, 2—17, 18—12, 18—7, 18—2, 13—7, 3—8, 3—13, 4—3, 4—8, 9—4, 9—3, 14—9, 14—4, 19—14, 19—9, 3—14, 3—19, 6—12, 6—13, 6—14, 17—11, 12—16, 2—12, 7—17, 11—13, 16—18 = 46 moves. I am, of course, not able to say positively that a solution cannot be discovered in fewer moves, but I believe it will be found a very hard task to reduce the number.
This position can be reached in as few as forty-six moves, as follows: 16—21, 16—22, 16—23, 17—16, 12—17, 12—22, 12—21, 7—12, 7—17, 7—22, 11—12, 11—17, 2—7, 2—12, 6—11, 8—7, 8—6, 13—8, 18—13, 11—18, 2—17, 18—12, 18—7, 18—2, 13—7, 3—8, 3—13, 4—3, 4—8, 9—4, 9—3, 14—9, 14—4, 19—14, 19—9, 3—14, 3—19, 6—12, 6—13, 6—14, 17—11, 12—16, 2—12, 7—17, 11—13, 16—18 = 46 moves. I can't say for sure that a solution can't be found in fewer moves, but I think reducing the number will be quite a challenge.
Call one pawn A and the other B. Now, owing to that optional first move, either pawn may make either 5 or 6 moves in reaching the eighth square. There are, therefore, four cases to be considered: (1) A 6 moves and B 6 moves; (2) A 6 moves and B 5 moves; (3) A 5 moves and B 6 moves; (4) A 5 moves and B 5 moves. In case (1) there are 12 moves, and we may select any 6 of these for A. Therefore 7 × 8 × 9 × 10 × 11 × 12 divided by 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 gives us the number of variations for this case—that is, 924. Similarly for case (2), 6 selections out of 11 will be 462; in case (3), 5 selections out of 11 will also be 462; and in case (4), 5 selections out of 10 will be 252. Add these four numbers together and we get 2,100, which is the correct number of different ways in which the pawns may advance under the conditions. (See No. 270, on p. 204.)
Call one pawn A and the other B. Now, because of that optional first move, either pawn can make either 5 or 6 moves to reach the eighth square. So, we have four scenarios to consider: (1) A makes 6 moves and B makes 6 moves; (2) A makes 6 moves and B makes 5 moves; (3) A makes 5 moves and B makes 6 moves; (4) A makes 5 moves and B makes 5 moves. In scenario (1), there are 12 moves, and we can select any 6 of these for A. Therefore, 7 × 8 × 9 × 10 × 11 × 12 divided by 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 gives us the number of variations for this scenario—924. Similarly, for scenario (2), selecting 6 out of 11 will be 462; in scenario (3), selecting 5 out of 11 will also be 462; and in scenario (4), selecting 5 out of 10 will be 252. Adding these four numbers together gives us 2,100, which is the correct number of different ways the pawns can advance under these conditions. (See No. 270, on p. 204.)
The White pawns may be arranged in 40,320 ways, the White rooks in 2 ways, the bishops in 2 ways, and the knights in 2 ways. Multiply these numbers together, and we find that the White pieces may be placed in 322,560 different Pg 232ways. The Black pieces may, of course, be placed in the same number of ways. Therefore the men may be set up in 322,560 × 322,560 = 104,044,953,600 ways. But the point that nearly everybody overlooks is that the board may be placed in two different ways for every arrangement. Therefore the answer is doubled, and is 208,089,907,200 different ways.
The White pawns can be arranged in 40,320 ways, the White rooks in 2 ways, the bishops in 2 ways, and the knights in 2 ways. If we multiply these numbers together, we find that the White pieces can be placed in 322,560 different Pg 232 ways. The Black pieces can, of course, be arranged in the same number of ways. So the total number of arrangements for the pieces is 322,560 × 322,560 = 104,044,953,600 ways. However, the point that almost everyone misses is that the board can be oriented in two different ways for each arrangement. So, we double the total, resulting in 208,089,907,200 different arrangements.
There are 1,296 different rectangles in all, 204 of which are squares, counting the square board itself as one, and 1,092 rectangles that are not squares. The general formula is that a board of n2 squares contains ((n2 + n)2)/4 rectangles, of which (2n3 + 3n2 + n)/6 are squares and (3n4 + 2n3 - 3n2 - 2n)/12 are rectangles that are not squares. It is curious and interesting that the total number of rectangles is always the square of the triangular number whose side is n.
There are 1,296 different rectangles in total, 204 of which are squares, counting the square board itself as one, and 1,092 rectangles that aren't squares. The general formula states that a board of n2 squares contains ((n² + n)²)/4 rectangles, of which (2n³ + 3n² + n)/6 are squares and (3n⁴ + 2n³ - 3n² - 2n)/12 are rectangles that aren't squares. It's interesting to note that the total number of rectangles is always the square of the triangular number whose side is n.
The answer involves the little point that in the final position the numbered rooks must be in numerical order in the direction contrary to that in which they appear in the original diagram, otherwise it cannot be solved. Play the rooks in the following order of their numbers. As there is never more than one square to which a rook can move (except on the final move), the notation is obvious—5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 4, 3, 6, 4, 7, 5, 4, 7, 3, 6, 7, 3, 5, 4, 3, 1, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 8, 2, 1, and rook takes bishop, checkmate. These are the fewest possible moves—thirty-two. The Black king's moves are all forced, and need not be given.
The answer involves the key point that in the end position, the numbered rooks must be arranged in numerical order in the opposite direction from how they appear in the original diagram; otherwise, it can’t be solved. Move the rooks in the following order of their numbers. Since there’s never more than one square a rook can move to (except on the final move), the notation is straightforward—5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 4, 3, 6, 4, 7, 5, 4, 7, 3, 6, 7, 3, 5, 4, 3, 1, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 8, 2, 1, and rook takes bishop, checkmate. These are the fewest possible moves—thirty-two. The Black king's moves are all forced and don’t need to be specified.
Working independently, the same position was arrived at by Messrs. S. Loyd, E.N. Frankenstein, W.H. Thompson, and myself. So the following may be accepted as the best solution possible to this curious problem :—
Working independently, the same conclusion was reached by Messrs. S. Loyd, E.N. Frankenstein, W.H. Thompson, and me. So the following can be considered the best possible solution to this interesting problem:—
White. | Black. |
1. P—Q4 | 1. P—K4 |
2. Q—Q3 | 2. Q—R5 |
3. Q—KKt3 | 3. B—Kt5 ch |
4. Kt—Q2 | 4. P—QR4 |
5. P—R4 | 5. P—Q3 |
6. P—R3 | 6. B—K3 |
7. R—R3 | 7. P—KB4 |
8. Q—R2 | 8. P—B4 |
9. R—KKt3 | 9. B—Kt6 |
10. P—QB4 | 10. P—B5 |
11. P—B3 | 11. P—K5 |
12. P—Q5 | 12. P—K6 |
And White is stalemated.
And White is in stalemate.
We give a diagram of the curious position arrived at. It will be seen that not one of White's pieces may be moved.
We provide a diagram of the interesting position reached. You'll see that not a single one of White's pieces can be moved.

Play as follows:—
Play as follows:—
White. | Black. |
1. P to K 4th | 1. Any move |
2. Q to Kt 4th | 2. Any move except on KB file (a) |
3. Q to Kt 7th | 3. K moves to royal row |
4. B to Kt 5th | 4. Any move |
5. Mate in two moves | |
If 3. K other than to royal row | |
4. P to Q 4th | 4. Any move |
5. Mate in two moves | |
(a) If 2. Any move on KB file | |
3. Q to Q 7th | 3. K moves to royal row |
4. P to Q Kt 3rd | 4. Any move |
5. Mate in two moves | |
If 3. K other than to royal row | |
4. P to Q 4th | 4. Any move |
5. Mate in two moves |
Of course, by "royal row" is meant the row on which the king originally stands at the beginning of a game. Though, if Black plays badly, he may, in certain positions, be mated in fewer moves, the above provides for every variation he can possibly bring about.
Of course, by "royal row," we mean the row where the king starts at the beginning of the game. However, if Black plays poorly, he might be checkmated in fewer moves in certain situations. The above accounts for every possible variation he could create.
White. | Black. |
1. Kt to QB 3rd | 1. P to Q 4th |
2. Kt takes QP | 2. Kt to QB 3rd |
3. Kt takes KP | 3. P to KKt 4th |
4. Kt takes B | 4. Kt to KB 3rd |
5. Kt takes P | 5. Kt to K 5th |
6. Kt takes Kt | 6. Kt to B 6th |
7. Kt takes Q | 7. R to KKt sq |
8. Kt takes BP | 8. R to KKt 3rd |
9. Kt takes P | 9. R to K 3rd |
10. Kt takes P | 10. Kt to Kt 8th |
11. Kt takes B | 11. R to R 6th |
12. Kt takes R | 12. P to Kt 4th |
13. Kt takes P (ch) | 13. K to B 2nd |
14. Kt takes P | 14. K to Kt 3rd |
15. Kt takes R | 15. K to R 4th |
16. Kt takes Kt | 16. K to R 5th |
White now mates in three moves. | |
17. P to Q 4th | 17. K to R 4th |
18. Q to Q 3rd | 18. K moves |
19. Q to KR 3rd (mate) | |
If 17. K to Kt 5th | |
18. P to K 4th (dis. ch) | 18. K moves |
19. P to KKt 3rd (mate) |
The position after the sixteenth move, with the mate in three moves, was first given by S. Loyd in Chess Nuts.
The position after the sixteenth move, with checkmate in three moves, was first presented by S. Loyd in Chess Nuts.
1. Kt to KB 3 |
2. Kt to KR 4 |
3. Kt to Kt 6 |
4. Kt takes R |
5. Kt to Kt 6 |
6. Kt takes B |
7. K takes Kt |
8. Kt to QB 3 |
9. Kt to R 4 |
10. Kt to Kt 6 |
11. Kt takes R |
12. Kt to Kt 6 |
13. Kt takes B |
14. Kt to Q 6 |
15. Q to K sq |
16. Kt takes Q |
17. K takes Kt, and the position is reached. |
Black plays precisely the same moves as White, and therefore we give one set of moves only. The above seventeen moves are the fewest possible.
Black plays the exact same moves as White, so we only provide one set of moves. The seventeen moves listed above are the minimum needed.
Place the remaining eight White pieces thus: K at KB 4th, Q at QKt 6th, R at Q 6th, R at KKt 7th, B at Q 5th, B at KR 8th, Kt at QR 5th, and Kt at QB 5th. The following mates can then be given:—
Place the remaining eight White pieces like this: King at Knight's Bishop 4th, Queen at Queen's Knight 6th, Rook at Queen 6th, Rook at King's Knight 7th, Bishop at Queen 5th, Bishop at King's Rook 8th, Knight at Queen's Rook 5th, and Knight at Queen's Bishop 5th. The following checkmates can then be achieved:—
By discovery from Q | 8 |
By discovery from R at Q 6th | 13 |
By discovery from B at R 8th | 11 |
Given by Kt at R 5th | 2 |
Given by pawns | 2 |
Total | 36 |
Is it possible to construct a position in which more than thirty-six different mates on the move can be given? So far as I know, nobody has yet beaten my arrangement.
Is it possible to create a scenario where more than thirty-six different pieces can be in motion? As far as I know, no one has managed to surpass my setup yet.
Mr Black left his king on his queen's knight's 7th, and no matter what piece White chooses for his pawn, Black cannot be checkmated. As we said, the Black king takes no notice of checks and never moves. White may queen his pawn, capture the Black rook, and bring his three pieces up to the attack, but mate is quite impossible. The Black king cannot be left on any other square without a checkmate being possible.
Mr. Black left his king on his queen's knight's 7th square, and no matter which piece White uses for his pawn, Black cannot be checkmated. As we mentioned, the Black king ignores checks and never moves. White can promote his pawn, capture the Black rook, and bring his three pieces into the attack, but checkmate is completely impossible. The Black king can't be placed on any other square without the risk of being checkmated.
The late Sam Loyd first pointed out the peculiarity on which this puzzle is based.
The late Sam Loyd was the first to highlight the oddity that this puzzle is built on.
Remove the White pawn from B 6th to K 4th and place a Black pawn on Black's KB 2nd. Now, White plays P to K 5th, check, and Black must play P to B 4th. Then White plays P takes P en passant, checkmate. This was therefore White's last move, and leaves the position given. It is the only possible solution.
Remove the White pawn from B6 to K4 and place a Black pawn on Black's KB2. Now, White plays P to K5, check, and Black must play P to B4. Then White plays P takes P en passant, checkmate. This was therefore White's last move, and leaves the position given. It is the only possible solution.

If you place the pieces as follows (where only a portion of the board is given, to save space), the Black king is in check, with no possible move open to him. The reader will now see why I avoided the term "checkmate," apart from the fact that there is no White king. The position is impossible in the game of chess, because Black could not be given check by both rooks at the same time, nor could he have moved into check on his last move.
If you arrange the pieces like this (with only part of the board shown to save space), the Black king is in check and has no legal moves available. You can now understand why I didn’t use the word "checkmate," besides the fact that there’s no White king. This situation is impossible in chess, because the Black king can’t be in check from both rooks simultaneously, nor could it have moved into check on its last turn.
I believe the position was first published by the late S. Loyd.
I think the position was first shared by the late S. Loyd.
Play as follows:—
Play as follows:—
1. R—Q 6 |
2. K—R 7 |
3. R (R 6)—B 6 (mate). |
Black's moves are forced, so need not be given.
Black's moves are mandatory, so there's no need to list them.
The general formula for six pawns on all squares greater than 22 is this: Six times the square of the number of combinations of n things taken three at a time, where n represents the number of squares on the side of the board. Of course, where n is even the unoccupied squares in the rows and columns will be even, and where n is odd the number of squares will be odd. Here n is 8, so the answer is 18,816 different ways. This is "The Dyer's Puzzle" (Canterbury Puzzles, No. 27) in another form. I repeat it here in order to explain a method of solving that will be readily grasped by the novice. First of all, it is evident that if we put a pawn on any line, we must put a second one in that line in order that the remainder may be even in number. We cannot put four or six in any row without making it impossible to get an even number in all the columns interfered with. We have, therefore, to put two pawns in each of three rows and in each of three columns. Now, there are just six schemes or arrangements that fulfil these conditions, and these are shown in Diagrams A to F, inclusive, on next page.
The general formula for six pawns on all squares greater than 22 is this: Six times the square of the number of combinations of n things taken three at a time, where n represents the number of squares on each side of the board. Of course, when n is even, the unoccupied squares in the rows and columns will be even, and when n is odd, the number of squares will be odd. Here n is 8, so the answer is 18,816 different ways. This is "The Dyer's Puzzle" (Canterbury Puzzles, No. 27) presented in another form. I mention it again to explain a solving method that beginners will easily understand. First of all, it's clear that if we place a pawn on any line, we must also place a second one on that line to keep the remainder even in number. We can't put four or six in any row without making it impossible to maintain an even number in all the affected columns. Therefore, we need to place two pawns in each of three rows and in each of three columns. Now, there are just six schemes or arrangements that meet these conditions, which are shown in Diagrams A to F, inclusive, on the next page.

I will just remark in passing that A and B are the only distinctive arrangements, because, if you give A a quarter-turn, you get F; and if you give B three quarter-turns in the direction that a clock hand moves, you will get successively C, D, and E. No matter how you may place your six pawns, if you have complied with the conditions of the puzzle they will fall under one of these arrangements. Of course it will be understood that mere expansions do not destroy the essential character of the arrangements. Thus G is only an expansion of form A. The solution therefore consists in finding the number of these expansions. Supposing we confine our operations to the first three rows, as in G, then with the pairs a and b placed in the first and second columns the pair c may be disposed in any one of the remaining six columns, and so give six solutions. Now slide pair b into the third column, and there are five possible positions for c. Slide b into the fourth column, and c may produce four new solutions. And so on, until (still leaving a in the first column) you have b in the seventh column, and there is only one place for c—in the eighth column. Then you may put a in the second column, b in the third, and c in the fourth, and start sliding c and b as before for another series of solutions.
I just want to point out that A and B are the only unique arrangements because if you rotate A a quarter turn, you get F; and if you rotate B three quarters in the direction of a clock hand, you'll get C, D, and E in that order. No matter how you position your six pawns, if you follow the puzzle's rules, they'll fit into one of these arrangements. It should be clear that simple expansions don't change the fundamental nature of the arrangements. So, G is just an expansion of form A. Therefore, the solution is about finding the number of these expansions. If we limit our focus to the first three rows, like in G, then with pairs a and b in the first and second columns, the pair c can go in any of the other six columns, giving six solutions. Move pair b to the third column, and there are five possible positions for c. Slide b into the fourth column, and c can create four new solutions. This continues until b is in the seventh column, leaving only one spot for c—the eighth column. Then, you can place a in the second column, b in the third, and c in the fourth, and start moving c and b again for another set of solutions.
We find thus that, by using form A alone and confining our operations to the three top rows, we get as many answers as there are combinations of 8 things taken 3 at a time. This is (8 × 7 × 6)/(1 × 2 × 3) = 56. And it will at once strike the reader that if there are 56 different ways of electing the columns, there must be for each of these ways just 56 ways of selecting the rows, for we may simultaneously work that "sliding" process downwards to the very bottom in exactly the same way as we have worked from left to right. Therefore the total number of ways in which form A may be applied is 56 × 6 = 3,136. But there are, as we have seen, six arrangements, and we have only dealt with one of these, A. We must, therefore, multiply this result by 6, which gives us 3,136 × 6 = 18,816, which is the total number of ways, as we have already stated.
We find that by using form A alone and limiting our work to the top three rows, we get as many answers as there are combinations of 8 items taken 3 at a time. This is (8 × 7 × 6)/(1 × 2 × 3) = 56. It's clear to the reader that if there are 56 different ways to choose the columns, there must be 56 ways to select the rows for each of these methods, since we can apply the same "sliding" process downward to the bottom as we did from left to right. So, the total number of ways to use form A is 56 × 6 = 3,136. But, as we've seen, there are six arrangements, and we’ve only considered one of these, A. Thus, we need to multiply this result by 6, which gives us 3,136 × 6 = 18,816, which is the total number of ways, as mentioned earlier.
Play as follows: 3—11, 9—10, 1—2, 7—15, 8—16, 8—7, 5—13, 1—4, 8—5, 6—14, 3—8, 6—3, 6—12, 1—6, 1—9, and all the counters will have been removed, with the exception of No. 1, as required by the conditions.
Play as follows: 3—11, 9—10, 1—2, 7—15, 8—16, 8—7, 5—13, 1—4, 8—5, 6—14, 3—8, 6—3, 6—12, 1—6, 1—9, and all the counters will have been removed, except for No. 1, as required by the conditions.
Play as follows: 7—15, 8—16, 8—7, 2—10, 1—9, 1—2, 5—13, 3—4, 6—3, 11—1, 14—8, 6—12, 5—6, 5—11, 31—23, 32—24, 32—31, 26—18, 25—17, 25—26, 22—32, 14—22, 29—21, 14—29, 27—28, 30—27, 25—14, 30—20, 25—30, 25—5. The two counters left on the board are 25 and 19—both belonging to the same group, as stipulated—and 19 has never been moved from its original place.
Play as follows: 7—15, 8—16, 8—7, 2—10, 1—9, 1—2, 5—13, 3—4, 6—3, 11—1, 14—8, 6—12, 5—6, 5—11, 31—23, 32—24, 32—31, 26—18, 25—17, 25—26, 22—32, 14—22, 29—21, 14—29, 27—28, 30—27, 25—14, 30—20, 25—30, 25—5. The two counters left on the board are 25 and 19—both belonging to the same group, as stated—and 19 has never been moved from its original spot.
I do not think any solution is possible in which only one counter is left on the board.
I don’t think it’s possible to find a solution where only one counter remains on the board.
White | Black, | |
1. | P to KB 4 | P to QB 3 |
2. | K to B 2 | Q to R 4 |
3. | K to K 3 | K to Q sq |
4. | P to B 5 | K to B 2 |
5. | Q to K sq | K to Kt 3 |
6. | Q to Kt 3 | Kt to QR 3 |
7. | Q to Kt 8 | P to KR 4 |
8. | Kt to KB 3 | R to R 3 |
9. | Kt to K 5 | R to Kt 3 |
10. | Q takes B | R to Kt 6, ch |
11. | P takes R | K to Kt 4 |
12. | R to R 4 | P to B 3 |
13. | R to Q 4 | P takes Kt |
14. | P to QKt 4 | P takes R, ch |
15. | K to B 4 | P to R 5 |
16. | Q to K 8 | P to R 6 |
17. | Kt to B 3, ch | P takes Kt |
18. | B to R 3 | P to R 7 |
19. | R to Kt sq | P to R 8 (Q) |
20. | R to Kt 2 | P takes R |
21. | K to Kt 5 | Q to KKt 8 |
22. | Q to R 5 | K to R 5 |
23. | P to Kt 5 | R to B sq |
24. | P to Kt 6 | R to B 2 |
25. | P takes R | P to Kt 8 (B) |
26. | P to B 8 (R) | Q to B 2 |
27. | B to Q 6 | Kt to Kt 5 |
28. | K to Kt 6 | K to R 6 |
29. | R to R 8 | K to Kt 7 |
30. | P to R 4 | Q (Kt 8) to Kt 3 |
31. | P to R 5 | K to B 8 |
32. | P takes Q | K to Q 8 |
33. | P takes Q | K to K 8 |
34. | K to B 7 | Kt to KR 3, ch |
35. | K to K 8 | B to R 7 |
36. | P to B 6 | B to Kt sq |
37. | P to B 7 | K takes B |
38. | P to B 8 (B) | Kt to Q 4 |
39. | B to Kt 8 | Kt to B 3, ch |
40. | K to Q 8 | Kt to K sq |
41. | P takes Kt (R) | Kt to B 2, ch |
42. | K to B 7 | Kt to Q sq |
43. | Q to B 7, ch | K to Kt 8 |
And the position is reached.
And the position has been reached.
The order of the moves is immaterial, and this order may be greatly varied. But, alPg 235though many attempts have been made, nobody has succeeded in reducing the number of my moves.
The order of the moves doesn't really matter, and you can change it up a lot. However, even though many people have tried, no one has managed to reduce the number of my moves.
The division of the twelve pints of ale can be made in eleven manipulations, as below. The six columns show at a glance the quantity of ale in the barrel, the five-pint jug, the three-pint jug, and the tramps X, Y, and Z respectively after each manipulation.
The twelve pints of ale can be divided in eleven steps, as shown below. The six columns give a quick overview of the amount of ale in the barrel, the five-pint jug, the three-pint jug, and the tramps X, Y, and Z after each step.
Barrel. | 5-pint. | 3-pint. | X. | Y. | Z. | |||||
7 | .. | 5 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
7 | .. | 2 | .. | 3 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
7 | .. | 0 | .. | 3 | .. | 2 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
7 | .. | 3 | .. | 0 | .. | 2 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
4 | .. | 3 | .. | 3 | .. | 2 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
0 | .. | 3 | .. | 3 | .. | 2 | .. | 4 | .. | 0 |
0 | .. | 5 | .. | 1 | .. | 2 | .. | 4 | .. | 0 |
0 | .. | 5 | .. | 0 | .. | 2 | .. | 4 | .. | 1 |
0 | .. | 2 | .. | 3 | .. | 2 | .. | 4 | .. | 1 |
0 | .. | 0 | .. | 3 | .. | 4 | .. | 4 | .. | 1 |
0 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 | .. | 4 | .. | 4 | .. | 4 |
And each man has received his four pints of ale.
And each person has received their four pints of beer.
The mixture of spirits of wine and water is in the proportion of 40 to 1, just as in the other bottle it was in the proportion of 1 to 40.
The mix of wine and water is in the ratio of 40 to 1, just like in the other bottle where it was in the ratio of 1 to 40.

All that is necessary is to tilt the barrel as in Fig. 1, and if the edge of the surface of the water exactly touches the lip a at the same time that it touches the edge of the bottom b, it will be just half full. To be more exact, if the bottom is an inch or so from the ground, then we can allow for that, and the thickness of the bottom, at the top. If when the surface of the water reached the lip a it had risen to the point c in Fig. 2, then it would be more than half full. If, as in Fig. 3, some portion of the bottom were visible and the level of the water fell to the point d, then it would be less than half full.
All you need to do is tilt the barrel as shown in Fig. 1, and if the edge of the water surface just touches the lip a at the same time it meets the edge of the bottom b, it will be exactly half full. To be more precise, if the bottom is about an inch off the ground, we can take that into account, along with the thickness of the bottom, at the top. If, when the water surface reached the lip a, it had risen to point c in Fig. 2, then it would be more than half full. If, as shown in Fig. 3, part of the bottom was visible and the water level dropped to point d, then it would be less than half full.
This method applies to all symmetrically constructed vessels.
This method applies to all symmetrically designed vessels.
The following solution in eleven manipulations shows the contents of every vessel at the start and after every manipulation:—
The following solution in eleven steps shows what’s inside each container at the beginning and after each step:—
10-quart. | 10-quart. | 5-quart. | 4-quart. | |||
10 | .. | 10 | .. | 0 | .. | 0 |
5 | .. | 10 | .. | 5 | .. | 0 |
5 | .. | 10 | .. | 1 | .. | 4 |
9 | .. | 10 | .. | 1 | .. | 0 |
9 | .. | 6 | .. | 1 | .. | 4 |
9 | .. | 7 | .. | 0 | .. | 4 |
9 | .. | 7 | .. | 4 | .. | 0 |
9 | .. | 3 | .. | 4 | .. | 4 |
9 | .. | 3 | .. | 5 | .. | 3 |
9 | .. | 8 | .. | 0 | .. | 3 |
4 | .. | 8 | .. | 5 | .. | 3 |
4 | .. | 10 | .. | 3 | .. | 3 |
Whatever the respective quantities of milk and water, the relative proportion sent to London would always be three parts of water to one of milk. But there are one or two points to be observed. There must originally be more water than milk, or there will be no water in A to double in the second transaction. And the water must not be more than three times the quantity of milk, or there will not be enough liquid in B to effect the second transaction. The third transaction has no effect on A, as the relative proportions in it must be the same as after the second transaction. It was introduced to prevent a quibble if the quantity of milk and water were originally the same; for though double "nothing" would be "nothing," yet the third transaction in such a case could not take place.
No matter how much milk and water there are, the ratio sent to London will always be three parts water to one part milk. However, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. There needs to be more water than milk at the start, or there won’t be any water in A to double during the second transaction. Also, the water can’t be more than three times the amount of milk, or there won’t be enough liquid in B for the second transaction. The third transaction doesn’t affect A since the ratios must remain the same as they were after the second transaction. It’s included to avoid confusion if the amounts of milk and water were originally equal; because while doubling "nothing" would still be "nothing," the third transaction couldn’t happen in that case.
The wine in small glass was one-sixth of the total liquid, and the wine in large glass two-ninths of total. Add these together, and we find that the wine was seven-eighteenths of total fluid, and therefore the water eleven-eighteenths.
The wine in the small glass was one-sixth of the total liquid, and the wine in the large glass was two-ninths of the total. If we add these together, we see that the wine was seven-eighteenths of the total fluid, which means the water was eleven-eighteenths.
The capacity of the jug must have been a little less than three gallons. To be more exact, it was 2.93 gallons.
The jug's capacity must have been just under three gallons. To be precise, it was 2.93 gallons.
There are three ways of mixing the teas. Taking them in the order of quality, 2s. 6d., 2s. 3d., 1s. 9p., mix 16 lbs., 1 lb., 3 lbs.; or 14 lbs., 4 lbs., 2 lbs.; or 12 lbs., 7 lbs., 1 lb. In every case the twenty pounds mixture should be worth 2s. 4½d. per pound; but the last case requires the smallest quantity of the best tea, therefore it is the correct answer.
There are three ways to mix the teas. Taking them in order of quality: 2s. 6d., 2s. 3d., 1s. 9p., mix 16 lbs., 1 lb., 3 lbs.; or 14 lbs., 4 lbs., 2 lbs.; or 12 lbs., 7 lbs., 1 lb. In every case, the twenty-pound mixture should be worth 2s. 4½d. per pound; however, the last case needs the smallest amount of the best tea, so it is the correct answer.
On the side of the box, 14 by 224/5, we can arrange 13 rows containing alternately 7 and 6 balls, or 85 in all. Above this we can place another layer consisting of 12 rows of 7 and 6 alternately, or a total of 78. In the length of 249/10 inches 15 such layers may be packed, the alternate layers containing 85 and 78 balls. Thus 8 times 85 added to 7 times 78 gives us 1,226 for the full contents of the box.
On the side of the box, measuring 14 by 224/5, we can arrange 13 rows alternating between 7 and 6 balls, totaling 85 balls. On top of this, we can add another layer with 12 rows alternating between 7 and 6, giving us a total of 78 balls. In the length of 249/10 inches, we can fit 15 such layers, with the alternate layers containing 85 and 78 balls. Therefore, 8 times 85 plus 7 times 78 equals a total of 1,226 for the entire contents of the box.
The box should be 100 inches by 100 inches by 11 inches deep, internal dimensions. We can lay flat at the bottom a row of eight slabs, lengthways, end to end, which will just fill one side, and nine of these rows will dispose of seventy-two slabs (all on the bottom), with a space left over on the bottom measuring 100 inches by 1 inch by 1 inch. Now make eleven depths of such seventy-two slabs, and we have packed 792, and have a space 100 inches by 1 inch by 11 inches deep. In this we may exactly pack the remaining eight slabs on edge, end to end.
The box should be 100 inches long, 100 inches wide, and 11 inches deep on the inside. We can lay down a row of eight slabs flat along the bottom, end to end, which will fill one side perfectly. Nine of these rows will fit seventy-two slabs (all at the bottom), leaving a space on the bottom that measures 100 inches by 1 inch by 1 inch. Now, if we do eleven layers of those seventy-two slabs, we’ll have packed 792 and will have a space that’s 100 inches by 1 inch by 11 inches deep. In this, we can neatly fit the remaining eight slabs on their edges, end to end.
The only way in which the barrels could be equally divided among the three brothers, so that each should receive his 3½ barrels of honey and his 7 barrels, is as follows:—
The only way to divide the barrels equally among the three brothers, so that each gets his 3½ barrels of honey and his 7 barrels, is as follows:—
Full. | Half-full. | Empty. | |
A | 3 | 1 | 3 |
B | 2 | 3 | 2 |
C | 2 | 3 | 2 |
There is one other way in which the division could be made, were it not for the objection that all the brothers made to taking more than four barrels of the same description. Except for this difficulty, they might have given B his quantity in exactly the same way as A above, and then have left C one full barrel, five half-full barrels, and one empty barrel. It will thus be seen that in any case two brothers would have to receive their allowance in the same way.
There’s one more way the division could have been made, if not for the objection all the brothers had to taking more than four barrels of the same type. Other than this issue, they could have given B his share just like A did above, and then left C with one full barrel, five half-full barrels, and one empty barrel. It’s clear that in any case, two of the brothers would have to receive their share in the same way.
First, the two sons cross, and one returns Then the man crosses and the other son returns. Then both sons cross and one returns. Then the lady crosses and the other son returns Then the two sons cross and one of them returns for the dog. Eleven crossings in all.
First, the two sons cross, and one comes back. Then the man crosses, and the other son comes back. After that, both sons cross again, and one comes back. Then the lady crosses, and the other son comes back. Finally, the two sons cross once more, and one of them goes back for the dog. Eleven crossings in total.
It would appear that no general rule can be given for solving these river-crossing puzzles. A formula can be found for a particular case (say on No. 375 or 376) that would apply to any number of individuals under the restricted conditions; but it is not of much use, for some little added stipulation will entirely upset it. As in the case of the measuring puzzles, we generally have to rely on individual ingenuity.
It seems there’s no universal rule for solving these river-crossing puzzles. You can find a formula for a specific case (like in No. 375 or 376) that applies to any number of people under certain conditions, but it's not very helpful because even a small change in the rules can completely throw it off. Just like with the measuring puzzles, we usually have to depend on our own creativity.
Here is the solution:—
Here’s the solution:—
{J 5) | G T8 3 | |
5 | ( J } | G T8 3 |
5 | {G 3) | JT8 |
53 | ( G } | JT8 |
53 | {J T) | G 8 |
J 5 | (T 3} | G 8 |
J 5 | {G 8) | T 3 |
G 8 | (J 5} | T |
G 8 | {J T) | 53 |
JT8 | ( G } | 53 |
JT8 | {G 3) | 5 |
G T8 3 | ( J } | 5 |
G T8 3 | {J 5) |
G, J, and T stand for Giles, Jasper, and Timothy; and 8, 5, 3, for £800, £500, and £300 respectively. The two side columns represent the left bank and the right bank, and the middle column the river. Thirteen crossings are necessary, and each line shows the position when the boat is in mid-stream during a crossing, the point of the bracket indicating the direction.
G, J, and T represent Giles, Jasper, and Timothy; and 8, 5, and 3 represent £800, £500, and £300, respectively. The two side columns show the left bank and the right bank, while the middle column represents the river. Thirteen crossings are needed, and each line indicates the position when the boat is halfway across, with the point of the bracket indicating the direction.
It will be found that not only is no person left alone on the land or in the boat with more than his share of the spoil, but that also no two persons are left with more than their joint shares, though this last point was not insisted upon in the conditions.
You’ll see that no one is left alone on the land or in the boat with more than their share of the loot, and also that no two people are left with more than their combined shares, even though this last point wasn’t emphasized in the conditions.
It is obvious that there must be an odd number of crossings, and that if the five husbands had not been jealous of one another the party might have all got over in nine crossings. But no wife was to be in the company of a man or men unless her husband was present. This entails two more crossings, eleven in all.
It’s clear that there has to be an odd number of crossings, and that if the five husbands hadn’t been jealous of each other, the group could have finished in nine crossings. But no wife could be with a man or men unless her husband was there. This adds two more crossings, making it a total of eleven.
The following shows how it might have been done. The capital letters stand for the husbands, and the small letters for their respective wives. The position of affairs is shown at the start, and after each crossing between the left bank and the right, and the boat is represented by the asterisk. So you can see at a glance that a, b, and c went over at the first crossing, that b and c returned at the second crossing, and so on.Pg 237
The following demonstrates how it could have been accomplished. The capital letters represent the husbands, while the lowercase letters represent their wives. The initial situation is displayed at the beginning, and after each trip across the river, the boat is indicated by the asterisk. This way, you can quickly see that a, b, and c crossed over during the first journey, that b and c came back during the second journey, and so forth.Pg 237
ABCDE abcde * | .. | ||
1. | ABCDE de | .. | * abc |
2. | ABCDE bcde * | .. | a |
3. | ABCDE e | .. | * abcd |
4. | ABCDE de * | .. | abc |
5. | DE de | .. | * ABC abc |
6. | CDE cde * | .. | AB ab |
7. | cde | .. | * ABCDE ab |
8. | bcde * | .. | ABCDE a |
9. | e | .. | * ABCDE abcd |
10. | bc e * | .. | ABCDE a d |
11. | .. | * ABCDE abcde |
There is a little subtlety concealed in the words "show the quickest way."
There’s a bit of nuance hidden in the phrase "show the quickest way."
Everybody correctly assumes that, as we are told nothing of the rowing capabilities of the party, we must take it that they all row equally well. But it is obvious that two such persons should row more quickly than one.
Everyone assumes that since we hear nothing about the rowing skills of the group, we should consider that they all row equally well. But it’s clear that two people rowing would be faster than one.
Therefore in the second and third crossings two of the ladies should take back the boat to fetch d, not one of them only. This does not affect the number of landings, so no time is lost on that account. A similar opportunity occurs in crossings 10 and 11, where the party again had the option of sending over two ladies or one only.
Therefore, in the second and third crossings, two of the ladies should take the boat back to fetch d, not just one of them. This doesn’t impact the number of landings, so no time is wasted because of that. A similar opportunity comes up in crossings 10 and 11, where the group once again had the option of sending over two ladies or just one.
To those who think they have solved the puzzle in nine crossings I would say that in every case they will find that they are wrong. No such jealous husband would, in the circumstances, send his wife over to the other bank to a man or men, even if she assured him that she was coming back next time in the boat. If readers will have this fact in mind, they will at once discover their errors.
To anyone who thinks they’ve cracked the puzzle in nine crossings, I would say they’re mistaken every time. No jealous husband would, under these circumstances, let his wife go to the other side with a man or men, even if she promised she’d return on the next boat. If readers keep this fact in mind, they’ll quickly see where they went wrong.
If there had been only three couples, the island might have been dispensed with, but with four or more couples it is absolutely necessary in order to cross under the conditions laid down. It can be done in seventeen passages from land to land (though French mathematicians have declared in their books that in such circumstances twenty-four are needed), and it cannot be done in fewer. I will give one way. A, B, C, and D are the young men, and a, b, c, and d are the girls to whom they are respectively engaged. The three columns show the positions of the different individuals on the lawn, the island, and the opposite shore before starting and after each passage, while the asterisk indicates the position of the boat on every occasion.
If there had been only three couples, the island might not have been necessary, but with four or more couples, it's definitely needed to meet the established conditions. It can be done in seventeen trips from one side to the other (although French mathematicians have claimed in their books that twenty-four are required), and it can't be done in fewer. I'll explain one way to do it. A, B, C, and D are the young men, and a, b, c, and d are the girls they are each engaged to. The three columns show where the different individuals are on the lawn, the island, and the opposite shore before starting and after each trip, while the asterisk marks the position of the boat on each occasion.
Lawn. | Island. | Shore. |
ABCDabcd * | ||
ABCD cd | ab * | |
ABCD bcd * | a | |
ABCD d | bc * | a |
ABCD cd * | b | a |
CD cd | b | AB a * |
BCD cd * | b | A a |
BCD | bcd * | A a |
BCD d * | bc | A a |
D d | bc | ABC a * |
D d | abc * | ABC |
D d | b | ABC a c * |
B D d * | b | A C a c |
d | b | ABCD a c * |
d | bc * | ABCD a |
d | ABCD abc * | |
cd * | ABCD ab | |
ABCD abcd * |
Having found the fewest possible passages, we should consider two other points in deciding on the "quickest method": Which persons were the most expert in handling the oars, and which method entails the fewest possible delays in getting in and out of the boat? We have no data upon which to decide the first point, though it is probable that, as the boat belonged to the girls' household, they would be capable oarswomen. The other point, however, is important, and in the solution I have given (where the girls do 8-13ths of the rowing and A and D need not row at all) there are only sixteen gettings-in and sixteen gettings-out. A man and a girl are never in the boat together, and no man ever lands on the island. There are other methods that require several more exchanges of places.
Having identified the fewest possible passages, we should consider two other factors in deciding on the "quickest method": Who were the most skilled in handling the oars, and which method involves the least amount of delays in getting in and out of the boat? We don’t have enough information to determine the first point, although it's likely that since the boat belonged to the girls' household, they would be capable rowers. However, the second point is significant, and in the solution I’ve presented (where the girls do 8-13ths of the rowing and A and D don’t need to row at all), there are only sixteen times getting in and sixteen times getting out. A man and a girl are never in the boat at the same time, and no man ever lands on the island. Other methods require several additional exchanges of positions.
Here is the best answer, in eleven manipulations:—
Here’s the best answer, in eleven steps:—
Treasure down. |
Boy down—treasure up. |
Youth down—boy up. |
Treasure down. |
Man down—youth and treasure up. |
Treasure down. |
Boy down—treasure up. |
Treasure down. |
Youth down—boy up. |
Boy down—treasure up. |
Treasure down. |
There are twenty-three different ways. You may start with any domino, except the 4—4 and those that bear a 5 or 6, though only certain initial dominoes may be played either way round. If you are given the common difference and the first domino is played, you have no option as to the other dominoes. Therefore all I need do is to give the initial domino for all the twenty-three ways, and state the common difference. This I will do as follows:—
There are twenty-three different ways. You can start with any domino, except the 4—4 and those that have a 5 or 6, though only certain starting dominoes can be played in either direction. If you know the common difference and the first domino is played, you have no choice in the other dominoes. So, all I need to do is provide the initial domino for all twenty-three ways and state the common difference. I will do that as follows:—
With a common difference of 1, the first domino may be either of these: 0—0, 0—1, 1—0, 0—2, 1—1, 2—0, 0—3, 1—2, 2—1, 3—0, 0—4, 1—3, 2—2, 3—1, 1—4, 2—3, 3—2, 2—4, 3—3, 3—4. With a difference of 2, the first domino may be 0—0, 0—2, or 0—1. Take the last case of all as an example. Having played the 0—1, and the difference being 2, we are Pg 238compelled to continue with 1—2, 2—3, 3—4. 4—5, 5—6. There are three dominoes that can never be used at all. These are 0—5, 0—6, and 1—6. If we used a box of dominoes extending to 9—9, there would be forty different ways.
With a common difference of 1, the first domino can be any of these: 0—0, 0—1, 1—0, 0—2, 1—1, 2—0, 0—3, 1—2, 2—1, 3—0, 0—4, 1—3, 2—2, 3—1, 1—4, 2—3, 3—2, 2—4, 3—3, 3—4. With a difference of 2, the first domino may be 0—0, 0—2, or 0—1. Let's take the last case as an example. After playing the 0—1, and since the difference is 2, we must continue with 1—2, 2—3, 3—4, 4—5, 5—6. There are three dominoes that can never be used: 0—5, 0—6, and 1—6. If we used a box of dominoes that goes up to 9—9, there would be forty different combinations.
There are just ten different ways of arranging the dominoes. Here is one of them:—
There are only ten different ways to arrange the dominoes. Here’s one of them:—
(2—0) (0—0) (0—1) (1—4) (4—0).
(2—0) (0—0) (0—1) (1—4) (4—0).
I will leave my readers to find the remaining nine for themselves.
I’ll let my readers discover the other nine on their own.

The illustration is a solution. It will be found that all four sides of the frame add up 44. The sum of the pips on all the dominoes is 168, and if we wish to make the sides sum to 44, we must take care that the four corners sum to 8, because these corners are counted twice, and 168 added to 8 will equal 4 times 44, which is necessary. There are many different solutions. Even in the example given certain interchanges are possible to produce different arrangements. For example, on the left-hand side the string of dominoes from 2—2 down to 3—2 may be reversed, or from 2—6 to 3—2, or from 3—0 to 5—3. Also, on the right-hand side we may reverse from 4—3 to 1—4. These changes will not affect the correctness of the solution.
The illustration provides a solution. You'll see that all four sides of the frame total 44. The total number of pips on all the dominoes is 168, and to ensure the sides add up to 44, we need the four corners to add up to 8, since these corners are counted twice. Adding 168 to 8 gives us 4 times 44, which is required. There are many different solutions. Even in the provided example, there are certain swaps possible to create different arrangements. For instance, on the left side, the sequence of dominoes from 2—2 down to 3—2 can be reversed, or from 2—6 to 3—2, or from 3—0 to 5—3. Additionally, on the right side, we can reverse from 4—3 to 1—4. These changes won’t affect the accuracy of the solution.
The sum of all the pips on the ten cards is 55. Suppose we are trying to get 14 pips on every side. Then 4 times 14 is 56. But each of the four corner cards is added in twice, so that 55 deducted from 56, or 1, must represent the sum of the four corner cards. This is clearly impossible; therefore 14 is also impossible. But suppose we came to trying 18. Then 4 times 18 is 72, and if we deduct 55 we get 17 as the sum of the corners. We need then only try different arrangements with the four corners always summing to 17, and we soon discover the following solution:—
The total value of all the pips on the ten cards is 55. Let's say we're aiming for 14 pips on each side. Four times 14 equals 56. However, since each of the four corner cards is counted twice, subtracting 55 from 56 gives us 1, which must be the total value of the four corner cards. This isn't possible, so achieving 14 pips is also impossible. Now, if we try aiming for 18, then four times 18 equals 72, and subtracting 55 leaves us with 17 as the total for the corner cards. We just need to find different arrangements where the four corners always add up to 17, and we quickly uncover the following solution:—

The final trials are very limited in number, and must with a little judgment either bring us to a correct solution or satisfy us that a solution is impossible under the conditions we are attempting. The two centre cards on the upright sides can, of course, always be interchanged, but I do not call these different solutions. If you reflect in a mirror you get another arrangement, which also is not considered different. In the answer given, however, we may exchange the 5 with the 8 and the 4 with the 1. This is a different solution. There are two solutions with 18, four with 19, two with 20, and two with 22—ten arrangements in all. Readers may like to find all these for themselves.
The final trials are very few in number and should, with a little thought, either lead us to the correct solution or convince us that a solution is impossible given the conditions we're working with. The two center cards on the upright sides can always be swapped, but I don’t consider these as different solutions. If you look in a mirror, you get another arrangement, which also isn’t regarded as different. However, in the answer provided, we can swap the 5 with the 8 and the 4 with the 1. That is a different solution. There are two solutions with 18, four with 19, two with 20, and two with 22—ten arrangements in total. Readers might enjoy trying to find all these on their own.
There are eighteen fundamental arrangements, as follows, where I only give the numbers in the horizontal bar, since the remainder must naturally fall into their places.
There are eighteen basic arrangements, listed below, where I will only provide the numbers in the horizontal bar, as the rest will naturally fit into their positions.
5 6 1 7 4 |
3 5 1 6 8 |
3 4 1 7 8 |
2 5 1 7 8 |
2 5 3 6 8 |
1 5 3 7 8 |
2 4 3 7 8 |
1 4 5 7 8 |
2 3 5 7 8 |
2 4 5 6 8 |
3 4 5 6 7 |
1 4 7 6 8 |
2 3 7 6 8 |
2 4 7 5 8 |
3 4 9 5 6 |
2 4 9 5 7 |
1 4 9 6 7 |
2 3 9 6 7 |
It will be noticed that there must always be an odd number in the centre, that there are four ways each of adding up 23, 25, and 27, but only three ways each of summing to 24 and 26.
It’s important to observe that there must always be an odd number in the center, that there are four ways to add up to 23, 25, and 27, but only three ways to sum to 24 and 26.
If we remove the ace, the remaining cards may he divided into two groups (each adding up alike) in four ways; if we remove 3, there are three ways; if 5, there are four ways; if 7, there are three ways; and if we remove 9, there are four ways of making two equal groups. There are thus eighteen different ways of grouping, and if we take any one of these and keep the odd card (that I have called "removed") at the head of the column, then one set of numbers can be varied in order in twenty-four ways in the column and the other four twenty-four ways in the horizontal, or together they may be varied in 24 × 24 = 576 ways. And as there are eighteen such cases, we multiply this number by 18 and get 10,368, the correct number of ways of placing the cards. As this number includes the reflections, we must divide by 2, but we have also to remember that every horizontal row can change places with a vertical row, necessitating our multiplying by 2; so one operation cancels the other.
If we take out the ace, the remaining cards can be divided into two groups (each totaling the same) in four different ways; if we take out 3, there are three ways; if we take out 5, there are four ways; if we take out 7, there are three ways; and if we take out 9, there are four ways to create two equal groups. This gives us a total of eighteen different ways to group the cards. If we choose any one of these and keep the single card (which I've referred to as "removed") at the top of the column, then one set of numbers can be arranged in twenty-four ways in the column and the other set can also be arranged in twenty-four ways horizontally, which means they can be arranged together in 24 × 24 = 576 ways. Since there are eighteen such cases, we multiply this number by 18 to get 10,368, the total number of ways to arrange the cards. This number includes reflections, so we need to divide by 2, but we also have to remember that every horizontal row can switch places with a vertical row, which means we should multiply by 2; thus, one operation cancels the other out.
The following arrangements of the cards show (1) the smallest possible sum, 17; and (2) the largest possible, 23.
The following arrangements of the cards show (1) the smallest possible sum, 17; and (2) the largest possible, 23.

It will be seen that the two cards in the middle of any side may always be interchanged without affecting the conditions. Thus there are eight ways of presenting every fundamental arrangement. The number of fundamentals is eighteen, as follows: two summing to 17, four summing to 19, six summing to 20, four summing to 21, and two summing to 23. These eighteen fundamentals, multiplied by eight (for the reason stated above), give 144 as the total number of different ways of placing the cards.
It can be observed that the two cards in the center of any side can always be swapped without changing the conditions. This means there are eight different ways to present each basic arrangement. There are eighteen basic arrangements in total, summarized as follows: two that add up to 17, four that add up to 19, six that add up to 20, four that add up to 21, and two that add up to 23. Multiplying these eighteen basic arrangements by eight (for the reason mentioned earlier) results in a total of 144 different ways to arrange the cards.
The reader may find a solution quite easy in a little over 200 moves, but, surprising as it may at first appear, not more than 62 moves are required. Here is the play: By "4 C up" I mean a transfer of the 4 of clubs with all the cards that rest on it. 1 D on space, 2 S on space, 3 D on space, 2 S on 3 D, 1 H on 2 S, 2 C on space, 1 D on 2 C, 4 S on space, 3 H on 4 S (9 moves so far), 2 S up on 3 H (3 moves), 5 H and 5 D exchanged, and 4 C on 5 D (6 moves), 3 D on 4 C (1), 6 S (with 5 H) on space (3), 4 C up on 5 H (3), 2 C up on 3 D (3), 7 D on space (1), 6 C up on 7 D (3), 8 S on space (1), 7 H on 8 S (1), 8 C on 9 D (1), 7 H on 8 C (1), 8 S on 9 H (1), 7 H on 8 S (1), 7 D up on 8 C (5), 4 C up on 5 D (9), 6 S up on 7 H (3), 4 S up on 5 H (7) = 62 moves in all. This is my record; perhaps the reader can beat it.
The reader could find a solution in just over 200 moves, but surprisingly, only 62 moves are actually needed. Here’s how to play: By "4 C up," I mean to move the 4 of clubs along with all the cards stacked on it. Move 1 D to space, 2 S to space, 3 D to space, 2 S onto 3 D, 1 H onto 2 S, 2 C to space, 1 D onto 2 C, 4 S to space, 3 H onto 4 S (that's 9 moves so far), then 2 S up onto 3 H (3 moves), exchange 5 H and 5 D, and place 4 C onto 5 D (6 moves), then 3 D onto 4 C (1), place 6 S (with 5 H) to space (3), 4 C up onto 5 H (3), 2 C up onto 3 D (3), move 7 D to space (1), place 6 C up onto 7 D (3), move 8 S to space (1), 7 H onto 8 S (1), place 8 C onto 9 D (1), move 7 H onto 8 C (1), 8 S onto 9 H (1), 7 H onto 8 S (1), move 7 D up onto 8 C (5), place 4 C up onto 5 D (9), then move 6 S up onto 7 H (3), and finally 4 S up onto 5 H (7) = 62 moves in total. That’s my record; maybe the reader can beat it.
All you have to do is to deduct 250 from the result given, and the three figures in the answer will be the three points thrown with the dice. Thus, in the throw we gave, the number given would be 386; and when we deduct 250 we get 136, from which we know that the throws were 1, 3, and 6.
All you need to do is subtract 250 from the result provided, and the three digits in the answer will represent the three points rolled on the dice. So, in the roll we mentioned, the number given would be 386; and when we subtract 250, we get 136, which tells us that the rolls were 1, 3, and 6.
The process merely consists in giving 100a + 10b + c + 250, where a, b, and c represent the three throws. The result is obvious.
The process just involves adding 100a + 10b + c + 250, where a, b, and c stand for the three throws. The outcome is clear.

The diagram No. 1 will show that as neither Mr. Podder nor Mr. Dumkins can ever have been within the crease opposite to that from which he started, Mr. Dumkins would score nothing by his performance. Diagram No. 2 will, however, make it clear that since Mr. Luffey and Mr. Struggles have, notwithstanding their energetic but careless movements, contrived to change places, the manœuvre must increase Mr. Struggles's total by one run.
The diagram No. 1 shows that since neither Mr. Podder nor Mr. Dumkins could ever be standing in the crease opposite to the one they started from, Mr. Dumkins won’t score anything from his performance. Diagram No. 2, however, will clarify that since Mr. Luffey and Mr. Struggles have, despite their energetic but careless actions, managed to switch places, this move must add one run to Mr. Struggles's total.
The captain must have been "not out" and scored 21. Thus:—
The captain must have been "not out" and scored 21. Thus:—
2 men (each lbw) | 19 |
4 men (each caught) | 17 |
1 man (run out) | 0 |
3 men (each bowled) | 9 |
1 man (captain—not out) | 21 |
11 | 66 |
The captain thus scored exactly 15 more than the average of the team. The "others" who were bowled could only refer to three men, as the eleventh man would be "not out." The reader can discover for himself why the captain must have been that eleventh man. It would not necessarily follow with any figures.
The captain ended up scoring exactly 15 more than the team's average. The "others" who were out could only refer to three players since the eleventh player was "not out." The reader can figure out for themselves why the captain must have been that eleventh player. It wouldn't necessarily follow from any statistics.
The smallest possible number of men is seven. They could be accounted for in three different ways: 1. Two with both arms sound, one with broken right arm, and four with both arms broken. 2. One with both arms sound, one with broken left arm, two with broken right arm, and three with both arms broken. 3. Two with left arm broken, three with right arm broken, and two with both arms broken. But if every man was injured, the last case is the only one that would apply.
The smallest possible number of men is seven. They can be described in three different ways: 1. Two with both arms fine, one with a broken right arm, and four with both arms broken. 2. One with both arms fine, one with a broken left arm, two with broken right arms, and three with both arms broken. 3. Two with broken left arms, three with broken right arms, and two with both arms broken. But if every man was injured, the last scenario is the only one that would apply.
The answer is: £12 on Acorn, £15 on Bluebottle, £20 on Capsule.
The answer is: £12 on Acorn, £15 on Bluebottle, £20 on Capsule.
The first point is to appreciate the fact that, in a race round a circular track, there are the same number of cars behind one as there are before. All the others are both behind and before. There were thirteen cars in the race, including Gogglesmith's car. Then one-third of twelve added to three-quarters of twelve will give us thirteen—the correct answer.
The first point is to recognize that, in a race on a circular track, there are just as many cars behind you as there are in front of you. All the other cars are positioned both behind and in front. There were thirteen cars in the race, including Gogglesmith's car. So one-third of twelve plus three-quarters of twelve equals thirteen—the right answer.
In the case of fifteen pebbles, the first player wins if he first takes two. Then when he holds an odd number and leaves 1, 8, or 9 he wins, and when he holds an even number and leaves 4, 5, or 12 he also wins. He can always do one or other of these things until the end of the game, and so defeat his opponent. In the case of thirteen pebbles the first player must lose if his opponent plays correctly. In fact, the only numbers with which the first player ought to lose are 5 and multiples of 8 added to 5, such as 13, 21, 29, etc.
In the game with fifteen pebbles, the first player wins if he takes two pebbles first. Then, if he has an odd number of pebbles left and leaves 1, 8, or 9, he wins. If he has an even number of pebbles left and leaves 4, 5, or 12, he also wins. He can always do one of these things until the end of the game, ensuring his victory over his opponent. In the game with thirteen pebbles, the first player must lose if his opponent plays correctly. In fact, the only numbers that guarantee a loss for the first player are 5 and any multiples of 8 added to 5, such as 13, 21, 29, and so on.
The second player can always win, but to ensure his doing so he must always place his rook, at the start and on every subsequent move, on the same diagonal as his opponent's rook. He can then force his opponent into a corner and win. Supposing the diagram to represent the positions of the rooks at the start, then, if Black played first, White might have placed his rook at A and won next move. Any square on that diagonal from A to H will win, but the best play is always to restrict the moves of the opposing rook as much as possible. If White played first, then Black should have placed his rook at B (F would not be so good, as it gives White more scope); then if White goes to C, Black moves to D; White to E, Black to F; White to G, Black to C; White to H, Black to I; and Black must win next move. If at any time Black had failed to move on to the same diagonal as White, then White could take Black's diagonal and win.
The second player can always win, but to ensure this, they must always place their rook, at the start and with every subsequent move, on the same diagonal as their opponent's rook. They can then force their opponent into a corner and win. Assuming the diagram shows the positions of the rooks at the beginning, if Black plays first, White could have placed their rook at A and won on the next move. Any square on that diagonal from A to H will win, but the best strategy is always to limit the opposing rook's moves as much as possible. If White plays first, Black should place their rook at B (F wouldn't be as good, as it gives White more options); then if White moves to C, Black goes to D; White to E, Black to F; White to G, Black to C; White to H, Black to I; and Black must win on the next move. If at any point, Black fails to move onto the same diagonal as White, White can take Black's diagonal and win.

No matter whether he plays first or second, the player A, who starts the game at 55, must win. Assuming that B adopts the very best lines of play in order to prolong as much as possible his existence, A, if he has first move, can always on his 12th move capture B; and if he has the second move, A can always on his 14th move make the capture. His point is always to get diagonally in line with his opponent, and by going to 33, if he has first move, he prevents B getting diagonally in line with himself. Here are two good games. The number in front of the hyphen is always A's move; that after the hyphen is B's:—
No matter if he goes first or second, player A, who starts the game at 55, must win. If B plays with the best possible strategies to extend his game as long as he can, A can always capture B on his 12th move if he goes first, and on his 14th move if he goes second. A's goal is to align diagonally with his opponent, and by moving to 33 first, he stops B from getting into a diagonal position with him. Here are two solid games. The number before the hyphen is always A's move; the number after the hyphen is B's:—
33-8, 32-15, 31-22, 30-21, 29-14, 22-7, 15-6, 14-2, 7-3, 6-4, 11-, and A must capture on his next (12th) move, -13, 54-20, 53-27, 52-34, 51-41, 50-34, 42-27, 35-20, 28-13, 21-6, 14-2, 7-3, 6-4, 11-, and A must capture on his next (14th) move.
33-8, 32-15, 31-22, 30-21, 29-14, 22-7, 15-6, 14-2, 7-3, 6-4, 11-, and A must capture on his next (12th) move, -13, 54-20, 53-27, 52-34, 51-41, 50-34, 42-27, 35-20, 28-13, 21-6, 14-2, 7-3, 6-4, 11-, and A must capture on his next (14th) move.
The Britisher can always catch the enemy, no matter how clever and elusive that astute individual may be; but curious though it may seem, the British general can only do so after he has paid a somewhat mysterious visit to the particular town marked "1" in the map, going in by 3 and leaving by 2, or entering by 2 and leaving by 3. The three towns that are shaded and have no numbers do not really come into the question, as some may suppose, for the simple reason that the Britisher never needs to enter any one of them, while the enemy cannot be forced to go into them, and would be clearly ill-advised to do so voluntarily. We may therefore leave these out of consideration altogether. No matter what the enemy may do, the Britisher should make the followPg 241ing first nine moves: He should visit towns 24, 20, 19, 15, 11, 7, 3, 1, 2. If the enemy takes it into his head also to go to town 1, it will be found that he will have to beat a precipitate retreat the same way that he went in, or the Britisher will infallibly catch him in towns 2 or 3, as the case may be. So the enemy will be wise to avoid that north-west corner of the map altogether.
The Brit can always catch the enemy, no matter how clever and sneaky that sharp individual may be; but oddly enough, the British general can only do this after making a somewhat mysterious visit to the town marked “1” on the map, entering through 3 and leaving through 2, or going in through 2 and leaving through 3. The three towns that are shaded and have no numbers don’t really matter, as some might think, because the Brit never needs to go into any of them, while the enemy can’t be forced to enter them and would clearly be making a mistake to do so voluntarily. So, we can completely ignore these towns. Regardless of the enemy's actions, the Brit should make the following first nine moves: He should visit towns 24, 20, 19, 15, 11, 7, 3, 1, and 2. If the enemy decides to go to town 1, they will have to make a hasty retreat the same way they came in, or the Brit will undoubtedly catch them in towns 2 or 3, depending on the situation. Therefore, the enemy would be smart to steer clear of that northwest corner of the map altogether.

Now, when the British general has made the nine moves that I have given, the enemy will be, after his own ninth move, in one of the towns marked 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, or 27. Of course, if he imprudently goes to 3 or 6 at this point he will be caught at once. Wherever he may happen to be, the Britisher "goes for him," and has no longer any difficulty in catching him in eight more moves at most (seventeen in all) in one of the following ways. The Britisher will get to 8 when the enemy is at 5, and win next move; or he will get to 19 when the enemy is at 22, and win next move; or he will get to 24 when the enemy is at 27, and so win next move. It will be found that he can be forced into one or other of these fatal positions.
Now, after the British general has made the nine moves I mentioned, the enemy will, after his own ninth move, end up in one of the towns numbered 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, or 27. Obviously, if he foolishly moves to 3 or 6 at this point, he will be immediately caught. No matter where he is, the British player "goes after him" and can catch him in at most eight more moves (seventeen total) in one of the following ways. The British player will reach 8 when the enemy is at 5, and win the next move; or he will reach 19 when the enemy is at 22, and win the next move; or he will reach 24 when the enemy is at 27, thus winning the next move. It will be clear that he can be forced into one of these disastrous positions.
In short, the strategy really amounts to this: the Britisher plays the first nine moves that I have given, and although the enemy does his very best to escape, our general goes after his antagonist and always driving him away from that north-west corner ultimately closes in with him, and wins. As I have said, the Britisher never need make more than seventeen moves in all, and may win in fewer moves if the enemy plays badly. But after playing those first nine moves it does not matter even if the Britisher makes a few bad ones. He may lose time, but cannot lose his advantage so long as he now keeps the enemy from town 1, and must eventually catch him.
In short, the strategy boils down to this: the British player makes the first nine moves I've outlined, and even though the opponent does everything possible to escape, our player keeps chasing him away from that northwest corner and eventually corners him to win. As I mentioned, the British player never needs to make more than seventeen moves in total, and might even win in fewer if the opponent makes mistakes. However, after executing those first nine moves, it doesn’t matter if the British player makes a few mistakes. He might lose some time, but he can't lose his advantage as long as he keeps the opponent away from Town 1, and he will inevitably catch him.
This is a complete explanation of the puzzle. It may seem a little complex in print, but in practice the winning play will now be quite easy to the reader. Make those nine moves, and there ought to be no difficulty whatever in finding the concluding line of play. Indeed, it might almost be said that then it is difficult for the British general not to catch the enemy. It is a question of what in chess we call the "opposition," and the visit by the Britisher to town 1 "gives him the jump" on the enemy, as the man in the street would say.
This is a complete explanation of the puzzle. It may seem a bit complex in writing, but in practice, the winning move will be quite straightforward for the reader. Make those nine moves, and there shouldn’t be any difficulty at all in finding the final line of play. In fact, one could almost say that it becomes difficult for the British general not to catch the enemy. It’s a matter of what we call "opposition" in chess, and the British player’s visit to town 1 "gives him the advantage" over the enemy, as the average person would say.
Here is an illustrative example in which the enemy avoids capture as long as it is possible for him to do so. The Britisher's moves are above the line and the enemy's below it. Play them alternately.
Here’s an example where the enemy avoids capture for as long as possible. The British moves are above the line, and the enemy's are below it. Play them alternately.
24 | 20 | 19 | 15 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 24 |
13 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 21 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 19 | 15 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 27 |
The enemy must now go to 25 or B, in either of which towns he is immediately captured.
The enemy now has to go to 25 or B, where he will be captured right away in either town.
If you form the three heaps (and are therefore the second to draw), any one of the following thirteen groupings will give you a win if you play correctly: 15, 14, 1; 15, 13, 2; 15, 12, 3; 15, 11, 4; 15, 10, 5; 15, 9, 6; 15, 8, 7; 14, 13, 3; 14, 11, 5; 14, 9, 7; 13, 11, 6; 13, 10, 7; 12, 11, 7.
If you create the three piles (and are therefore the second to take a turn), any of the following thirteen combinations will secure a win for you if you play correctly: 15, 14, 1; 15, 13, 2; 15, 12, 3; 15, 11, 4; 15, 10, 5; 15, 9, 6; 15, 8, 7; 14, 13, 3; 14, 11, 5; 14, 9, 7; 13, 11, 6; 13, 10, 7; 12, 11, 7.
The beautiful general solution of this problem is as follows. Express the number in every heap in powers of 2, avoiding repetitions and remembering that 20 = 1. Then if you so leave the matches to your opponent that there is an even number of every power, you can win. And if at the start you leave the powers even, you can always continue to do so throughout the game. Take, as example, the last grouping given above—12, 11, 7. Expressed in powers of 2 we have—
The elegant general solution to this problem is as follows. Write the number in each heap as sums of powers of 2, avoiding any duplicates and remembering that 20 = 1. Then, if you leave your opponent with an even count of every power, you're guaranteed to win. If you start by leaving the powers even, you can maintain that advantage throughout the game. For example, consider the last grouping given above—12, 11, 7. When expressed in powers of 2, we have—
12 | = | 8 | 4 | - | - |
11 | = | 8 | - | 2 | 1 |
7 | = | - | 4 | 2 | 1 |
2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
As there are thus two of every power, you must win. Say your opponent takes 7 from the 12 heap. He then leaves—
As there are two of every power, you have to win. Let's say your opponent takes 7 from the 12 heap. He then leaves—
5 | = | - | 4 | - | 1 |
11 | = | 8 | - | 2 | 1 |
7 | = | - | 4 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Here the powers are not all even in number, but by taking 9 from the 11 heap you immediately restore your winning position, thus—
Here, the powers aren't all in equal numbers, but by taking 9 from the 11 pile, you instantly get back to your winning position, like this—
5 | = | - | 4 | - | 1 |
2 | = | - | - | 2 | - |
7 | = | - | 4 | 2 | 1 |
- | 2 | 2 | 2 |
The players should select the pairs 5 and 9, and 13 and 15, if the chances of winning are to be quite equal. There are 216 different ways in which the three dice may fall. They may add up 5 in 6 different ways and 9 in 25 different ways, making 31 chances out of 216 for the player who selects these numbers. Also the dice may add up 13 in 21 different ways, and 15 in 10 different ways, thus giving the other player also 31 chances in 216.
The players should choose the pairs 5 and 9, and 13 and 15, if they want the chances of winning to be pretty much equal. There are 216 different combinations for how the three dice can roll. They can add up to 5 in 6 different ways and to 9 in 25 different ways, which gives a total of 31 chances out of 216 for the player who picks these numbers. Additionally, the dice can add up to 13 in 21 different ways, and to 15 in 10 different ways, giving the other player also 31 chances out of 216.
Not a single member of the club mastered this puzzle, and yet I shall show that it is so simple that the merest child can understand its solution—when it is pointed out to him! The large majority of my friends expressed their entire bewilderment. Many considered that "the theoretical result, in any case, is determined by the relationship between the table and the cigars;" others, regarding it as a problem in the theory of Probabilities, arrived at the conclusion that the chances are slightly in favour of the first or second player, as the case may be. One man took a table and a cigar of particular dimensions, divided the table into equal sections, and proceeded to make the two players fill up these sections so that the second player should win. But why should the first player be so accommodating? At any stage he has only to throw down a cigar obliquely across several of these sections entirely to upset Mr. 2's calculations! We have to assume that each player plays the best possible; not that one accommodates the other.
Not a single member of the club figured out this puzzle, yet I’m going to show that it’s so simple that even a child can grasp the solution—once it’s pointed out to them! Most of my friends were completely puzzled. Many thought that "the theoretical result, in any case, is determined by the relationship between the table and the cigars;" others, viewing it as a problem in Probability theory, concluded that the odds slightly favor the first or second player, depending on the situation. One guy set up a table and a cigar of specific dimensions, divided the table into equal sections, and had both players fill in those sections so that the second player would win. But why should the first player be so generous? At any point, he could just throw a cigar diagonally across several sections to completely mess up Mr. 2's plans! We have to assume that each player plays to the best of their ability; not that one helps the other.
The theories of some other friends would be quite sound if the shape of the cigar were that of a torpedo—perfectly symmetrical and pointed at both ends.
The ideas from some of my other friends would make a lot of sense if the cigar looked like a torpedo—perfectly symmetrical and sharp at both ends.
I will show that the first player should infallibly win, if he always plays in the best possible manner. Examine carefully the following diagram, No. 1, and all will be clear.
I will demonstrate that the first player will definitely win if they always play in the best possible way. Take a close look at the following diagram, No. 1, and everything will be clear.

The first player must place his first cigar on end in the exact centre of the table, as indicated by the little circle. Now, whatever the second player may do throughout, the first player must always repeat it in an exactly diametrically opposite position. Thus, if the second player places a cigar at A, I put one at AA; he places one at B, I put one at BB; he places one at C, I put one at CC; he places one at D, I put one at DD; he places one at E, I put one at EE; and so on until no more cigars can be placed without touching. As the cigars are supposed to be exactly alike in every respect, it is perfectly clear that for every move that the second player may choose to make, it is possible exactly to repeat it on a line drawn through the centre of the table. The second player can always duplicate the first player's move, no matter where he may place a cigar, or whether he places it on end or on its side. As the cigars are all alike in every respect, one will obviously balance over the edge of the table at precisely the same point as another. Of course, as each player is supposed to play in the best possible manner, it becomes a matter of theory. It is no valid objection to say that in actual practice one would not be sufficiently exact to be sure of winning. If as the first player you did not win, it would be in consequence of your not having played the best possible.
The first player must place his first cigar standing up in the exact center of the table, as shown by the little circle. From that point on, whatever the second player does, the first player must always replicate it in a position directly opposite. So, if the second player places a cigar at A, I put one at AA; he places one at B, I put one at BB; he places one at C, I put one at CC; he places one at D, I put one at DD; he places one at E, I put one at EE; and so on until no more cigars can be placed without touching. Since the cigars are supposed to be identical in every way, it's clear that for every move the second player makes, it can be exactly mirrored on a line drawn through the center of the table. The second player can always duplicate the first player's move, regardless of where he places a cigar, or whether he places it upright or sideways. Since all the cigars are the same, one will obviously balance over the edge of the table at exactly the same point as another. Naturally, since each player is expected to play in the best way possible, it becomes a theoretical matter. It's not a valid argument to say that in practice, one wouldn’t be precise enough to win. If you, as the first player, don’t win, it would be because you did not play your best.
The second diagram will serve to show why the first cigar must be placed on end. (And here I will say that the first cigar that I selected from a box I was able so to stand on end, and I am allowed to assume that all the other cigars would do the same.) If the first cigar were placed on its side, as at F, then the second player could place a cigar as at G—as near as possible, but not actually touching F. Now, in this position you cannot repeat his play on the opposite side, because the two ends of the cigar are not alike. It will be seen that GG, when placed on the opposite side in the same relation to the centre, intersects, or lies on top of, F, whereas the cigars are not allowed to touch. You must therefore put the cigar farther away from the centre, which would result in your having insufficient room between the centre and the bottom left-hand corner to repeat everything that the other player would do between G and the top right-hand corner. Therefore the result would not be a certain win for the first player.
The second diagram will show why the first cigar needs to be stood on end. (I'll mention that the first cigar I picked from a box stood up easily, so I can assume the others will too.) If the first cigar is laid on its side, like at F, then the second player could place a cigar at G—close but not touching F. In this setup, you can't mirror his move on the opposite side because the two ends of the cigar are different. You'll notice that GG, when placed on the opposite side in the same relation to the center, overlaps F, but the cigars can't touch. So, you would need to place the cigar further from the center, which would leave you with too little space between the center and the bottom left corner to mirror everything the other player does between G and the top right corner. This means the first player wouldn't have a guaranteed win.

The conditions were to place a different number in each of the nine cells so that the three rows, Pg 243three columns, and two diagonals should each add up 15. Probably the reader at first set himself an impossible task through reading into these conditions something which is not there—a common error in puzzle-solving. If I had said "a different figure," instead of "a different number," it would have been quite impossible with the 8 placed anywhere but in a corner. And it would have been equally impossible if I had said "a different whole number." But a number may, of course, be fractional, and therein lies the secret of the puzzle. The arrangement shown in the figure will be found to comply exactly with the conditions: all the numbers are different, and the square adds up 15 in all the required eight ways.
The task was to place a different number in each of the nine cells so that the three rows, Pg 243 three columns, and two diagonals all add up to 15. It's likely that the reader initially made the mistake of thinking this was an impossible challenge by misinterpreting the conditions—something that often happens in puzzle-solving. If I had said "a different figure" instead of "a different number," it would have been impossible with the 8 in any position other than a corner. Similarly, it would have been just as impossible if I had said "a different whole number." However, a number can be fractional, and that's the key to the puzzle. The arrangement shown in the figure meets all the conditions: all the numbers are different, and the square adds up to 15 in all eight required ways.
There are of course six different places between the seven figures in which a cut may be made, and the secret lies in keeping one strip intact and cutting each of the other six in a different place. After the cuts have been made there are a large number of ways in which the thirteen pieces may be placed together so as to form a magic square. Here is one of them:—
There are six different spots among the seven figures where a cut can be made, and the trick is to keep one strip whole while cutting each of the other six in a different spot. Once the cuts are made, there are many ways to arrange the thirteen pieces to create a magic square. Here is one of them:—

The arrangement has some rather interesting features. It will be seen that the uncut strip is at the top, but it will be found that if the bottom row of figures be placed at the top the numbers will still form a magic square, and that every successive removal from the bottom to the top (carrying the uncut strip stage by stage to the bottom) will produce the same result. If we imagine the numbers to be on seven complete perpendicular strips, it will be found that these columns could also be moved in succession from left to right or from right to left, each time producing a magic square.
The setup has some pretty fascinating features. You'll notice that the uncut strip is at the top, but you'll find that if the bottom row of numbers is moved to the top, they still create a magic square. Plus, every time you shift a number from the bottom to the top (moving the uncut strip step by step to the bottom), you'll get the same result. If we think of the numbers as being on seven complete perpendicular strips, we can also move these columns one after another from left to right or from right to left, and each time it will form a magic square.
There are eight ways of forming the magic square—all merely different aspects of one fundamental arrangement. Thus, if you give our first square a quarter turn you will get the second square; and as the four sides may be in turn brought to the top, there are four aspects. These four in turn reflected in a mirror produce the remaining four aspects. Now, of these eight arrangements only four can possibly be reached under the conditions, and only two of these four can be reached in the fewest possible moves, which is nineteen. These two arrangements are shown. Move the men in the following order: 5, 3, 2, 5, 7, 6, 4, 1, 5, 7, 6, 4, 1, 6, 4, 8, 3, 2, 7, and you get the first square. Move them thus: 4, 1, 2, 4, 1, 6, 7, 1, 5, 8, 1, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 4, 2, 7, and you have the arrangement in the second square. In the first case every man has moved, but in the second case the man numbered 3 has never left his cell. Therefore No. 3 must be the obstinate prisoner, and the second square must be the required arrangement.
There are eight ways to create the magic square—all just different versions of one basic setup. So, if you rotate our first square a quarter turn, you’ll get the second square; and since any of the four sides can be moved to the top, there are four versions. These four can then be mirrored to create the other four versions. Of these eight setups, only four can actually be achieved under the conditions, and only two of those four can be reached in the fewest moves, which is nineteen. These two setups are shown. Move the pieces in this order: 5, 3, 2, 5, 7, 6, 4, 1, 5, 7, 6, 4, 1, 6, 4, 8, 3, 2, 7, and you’ll have the first square. Move them this way: 4, 1, 2, 4, 1, 6, 7, 1, 5, 8, 1, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 4, 2, 7, and you’ll get the arrangement in the second square. In the first case, every piece has moved, but in the second case, the piece numbered 3 hasn’t moved at all. So, No. 3 must be the stubborn piece, and the second square must be the desired arrangement.

There is a pitfall set for the unwary in this little puzzle. At the start one man is allowed to be placed on the shoulders of another, so as to give always one empty cell to enable the prisoners to move about without any two ever being in a cell together. The two united prisoners are allowed to add their numbers together, and are, of course, permitted to remain together at the completion of the magic square. But they are obviously not compelled so to remain together, provided that one of the pair on his final move does not break the condition of entering a cell already occupied. After the acute solver has noticed this point, it is for him to determine which method is the better one—for the two to be together at the count or to separate. As a matter of fact, the puzzle can be solved in seventeen moves if the men are to remain together; but if they separate at thePg 244 end, they may actually save a move and perform the feat in sixteen! The trick consists in placing the man in the centre on the back of one of the corner men, and then working the pair into the centre before their final separation.
There’s a trap set for the unsuspecting in this little puzzle. At the beginning, one person can be placed on another's shoulders to keep one cell empty, allowing the prisoners to move around without ever having two in the same cell. The two combined prisoners can add their numbers together and are, of course, allowed to stay together when completing the magic square. However, they are not required to stay together, as long as one of them doesn’t break the rule by entering an occupied cell on their last move. Once the sharp solver notices this, it’s up to them to decide which approach is better: keeping the two together for the count or splitting them up. In fact, the puzzle can be solved in seventeen moves if they stay together, but if they separate at the end, they can actually manage to do it in just sixteen moves! The trick is to place the person in the center on the back of one of the corner people and then maneuver the pair into the center before they finally separate.

Here are the moves for getting the men into one or other of the above two positions. The numbers are those of the men in the order in which they move into the cell that is for the time being vacant. The pair is shown in brackets:—
Here are the steps for getting the men into one of the two positions mentioned above. The numbers refer to the men in the order they move into the currently vacant cell. The pairs are shown in brackets:—
Place 5 on 1. Then, 6, 9, 8, 6, 4, (6), 2, 4, 9, 3, 4, 9, (6), 7, 6, 1.
Place 5 on 1. Then, 6, 9, 8, 6, 4, (6), 2, 4, 9, 3, 4, 9, (6), 7, 6, 1.
Place 5 on 9. Then, 4, 1, 2, 4, 6, (14), 8, 6, 1, 7, 6, 1, (14), 3, 4, 9.
Place 5 on 9. Then, 4, 1, 2, 4, 6, (14), 8, 6, 1, 7, 6, 1, (14), 3, 4, 9.
Place 5 on 3. Then, 6, (8), 2, 6, 4, 7, 8, 4, 7, 1, 6, 7, (8), 9, 4, 3.
Place 5 on 3. Then, 6, (8), 2, 6, 4, 7, 8, 4, 7, 1, 6, 7, (8), 9, 4, 3.
Place 5 on 7. Then, 4, (12), 8, 4, 6, 3, 2, 6, 3, 9, 4, 3, (12), 1, 6, 7.
Place 5 on 7. Then, 4, (12), 8, 4, 6, 3, 2, 6, 3, 9, 4, 3, (12), 1, 6, 7.
The first and second solutions produce Diagram A; the second and third produce Diagram B. There are only sixteen moves in every case. Having found the fewest moves, we had to consider how we were to make the burdened man do as little work as possible. It will at once be seen that as the pair have to go into the centre before separating they must take at fewest two moves. The labour of the burdened man can only be reduced by adopting the other method of solution, which, however, forces us to take another move.
The first and second solutions create Diagram A; the second and third create Diagram B. In every case, there are only sixteen moves. After identifying the fewest moves, we needed to think about how to make the burdened person do as little work as possible. It’s clear that since the pair has to move to the center before splitting up, they must take at least two moves. The workload of the burdened person can only be lessened by using the other method of solution, which, however, requires us to take an additional move.

This can best be solved by working backwards—that is to say, you must first catch your square, and then work back to the original position. We must first construct those squares which are found to require the least amount of readjustment of the numbers. Many of these we know cannot possibly be reached. When we have before us the most favourable possible arrangements, it then becomes a question of careful analysis to discover which position can be reached in the fewest moves. I am afraid, however, it is only after considerable study and experience that the solver is able to get such a grasp of the various "areas of disturbance" and methods of circulation that his judgment is of much value to him.
This can be best solved by working backwards—that is, you need to first identify your square, and then trace back to the original position. We should start by creating those squares that need the least amount of adjustment of the numbers. Many of these we know cannot possibly be reached. Once we have the most favorable arrangements in front of us, it then becomes a matter of careful analysis to find out which position can be reached in the fewest moves. However, I’m afraid it’s only after significant study and experience that the solver can really understand the various "areas of disturbance" and circulation methods well enough for their judgment to be truly valuable.
The second diagram is a most favourable magic square position. It will be seen that prisoners 4, 8, 13, and 14 are left in their original cells. This position may be reached in as few as thirty-seven moves. Here are the moves: 15, 14, 10, 6, 7, 3, 2, 7, 6, 11, 3, 2, 7, 6, 11, 10, 14, 3, 2, 11, 10, 9, 5, 1, 6, 10, 9, 5, 1, 6, 10, 9, 5, 2, 12, 15, 3. This short solution will probably surprise many readers who may not find a way under from sixty to a hundred moves. The clever prisoner was No. 6, who in the original illustration will be seen with his arms extended calling out the moves. He and No. 10 did most of the work, each changing his cell five times. No. 12, the man with the crooked leg, was lame, and therefore fortunately had only to pass from his cell into the next one when his time came round.
The second diagram shows a very favorable magic square position. You can see that prisoners 4, 8, 13, and 14 are still in their original cells. This position can be achieved in as few as thirty-seven moves. Here are the moves: 15, 14, 10, 6, 7, 3, 2, 7, 6, 11, 3, 2, 7, 6, 11, 10, 14, 3, 2, 11, 10, 9, 5, 1, 6, 10, 9, 5, 1, 6, 10, 9, 5, 2, 12, 15, 3. This quick solution may surprise many readers who might expect to take between sixty and a hundred moves. The smart prisoner was No. 6, who in the original illustration can be seen with his arms outstretched, calling out the moves. He and No. 10 did most of the work, each changing cells five times. No. 12, the guy with the crooked leg, was lame, so luckily he only had to move from his cell to the next one when it was his turn.

In attempting to solve this puzzle it is clearly necessary to seek such magic squares as seem the most favourable for our purpose, and then carefully examine and try them for "fewest moves." Of course it at once occurs to us that if we can adopt a square in which a certain number of men need not leave their original cells, we may save moves on the one hand, but we may obstruct our movements on the other. For example, a magic square may be formed with the 6, 7, 13, and 16 unmoved; but in such case it is obvious that a solution is impossible, since cells 14 and 15 can neither be left nor entered without breaking the condition of no two men ever being in the same cell together.
To solve this puzzle, we obviously need to look for magic squares that are most suitable for our goal and then carefully test them for the "fewest moves." It quickly occurs to us that if we choose a square where a certain number of pieces can stay in their original positions, we might save moves on one side, but we could also block our progress on the other. For instance, a magic square could be created with the 6, 7, 13, and 16 pieces unmoved; however, in that case, it’s clear that a solution is impossible since pieces 14 and 15 cannot be left or entered without violating the rule that no two pieces can occupy the same cell at the same time.
The following solution in fourteen moves was found by Mr. G. Wotherspoon: 8-17, 16-21, 6-16, 14-8, 5-18, 4-14, 3-24, 11-20, 10-19, 2-23, 13-22, 12-6, 1-5, 9-13. As this solution is in what I consider the theoretical minimum number of moves, I am confident that it cannot be improved upon, and on this point Mr. Wotherspoon is of the same opinion.
The following solution in fourteen moves was found by Mr. G. Wotherspoon: 8-17, 16-21, 6-16, 14-8, 5-18, 4-14, 3-24, 11-20, 10-19, 2-23, 13-22, 12-6, 1-5, 9-13. Since this solution is, in my view, the theoretical minimum number of moves, I'm confident that it can't be improved upon, and Mr. Wotherspoon shares this opinion.
Arrange the cards as follows for the three new squares:—
Arrange the cards like this for the three new squares:—
3 | 2 | 4 |
4 | 3 | 2 |
2 | 4 | 3 |
6 | 5 | 7 |
7 | 6 | 5 |
5 | 7 | 6 |
9 | 8 | 10 |
10 | 9 | 8 |
8 | 10 | 9 |
Three aces and one ten are not used. The summations of the four squares are thus: 9, 15, 18, and 27—all different, as required.
Three aces and one ten are not used. The sums of the four squares are therefore: 9, 15, 18, and 27—all different, as required.

The illustration explains itself. It will be found that the pips in every column, row, and long diagonal add up 18, as required.
The illustration speaks for itself. You'll see that the pips in every column, row, and long diagonal total 18, as needed.
Here are two solutions that fulfil the conditions:—
Here are two solutions that meet the conditions:—

The first, by subtracting, has a constant 8, and the associated pairs all have a difference of 4. The second square, by dividing, has a constant 9, and all the associated pairs produce 3 by division. These are two remarkable and instructive squares.
The first one, by subtracting, has a constant of 8, and the associated pairs all have a difference of 4. The second square, by dividing, has a constant of 9, and all the associated pairs result in 3 through division. These are two impressive and educational squares.
The following is the square that I constructed. As it stands the constant is 260. If for every number you substitute, in its allotted place, its square, then the constant will be 11,180. Readers can write out for themselves the second degree square.
The following is the square that I created. Right now, the constant is 260. If you substitute each number in its designated spot with its square, then the constant will be 11,180. Readers can write out the second degree square for themselves.

The main key to the solution is the pretty law that if eight numbers sum to 260 and their squares to 11,180, then the same will happen in the case of the eight numbers that are complementary to 65. Thus 1 + 18 + 23 + 26 + 31 + 48 + 56 + 57 = 260, and the sum of their squares is 11,180. Therefore 64 + 47 + 42 + 39 + 34 + 17 + 9 + 8 (obtained by subtracting each of the above numbers from 65) will sum to 260 and their squares to 11,180. Note that in every one of the sixteen smaller squares the two diagonals sum to 65. There are four columns and four rows with their complementary columns and rows. Let us pick out the numbers found in the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and 3rd rows and arrange them thus :—
The key to the solution is the neat property that if eight numbers add up to 260 and their squares total 11,180, then the same applies to the eight numbers that complement 65. So, 1 + 18 + 23 + 26 + 31 + 48 + 56 + 57 = 260, and the sum of their squares is 11,180. Therefore, 64 + 47 + 42 + 39 + 34 + 17 + 9 + 8 (which is found by subtracting each of the above numbers from 65) will also add up to 260, and their squares will equal 11,180. Note that in each of the sixteen smaller squares, the two diagonals sum to 65. There are four columns and four rows, along with their complementary columns and rows. Let's pick out the numbers from the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and 3rd rows and arrange them like this:—
1 | 8 | 28 | 29 | 42 | 47 | 51 | 54 |
2 | 7 | 27 | 30 | 41 | 48 | 52 | 53 |
3 | 6 | 26 | 31 | 44 | 45 | 49 | 56 |
4 | 5 | 25 | 32 | 43 | 46 | 50 | 55 |
Here each column contains four consecutive numbers cyclically arranged, four running in one direction and four in the other. The numbers in the 2nd, 5th, 3rd, and 8th columns of the square may be similarly grouped. The great difficulty lies in discovering the conditions governing these groups of numbers, the pairing of the complementaries in the squares of four and the formation of the diagonals. But when a correct solution is shown, as above, it discloses all the more important keys to the mystery. I am inclined to think this square of two degrees the most elegant thing that exists in magics. I believe such a magic square cannot be constructed in the case of any order lower than 8.
Here, each column contains four consecutive numbers arranged in cycles—four going in one direction and four going in the opposite. The numbers in the 2nd, 5th, 3rd, and 8th columns of the square can also be grouped in a similar way. The main challenge is figuring out the rules that govern these number groups, how the complementary pairs fit into sets of four, and how the diagonals are formed. But when the correct solution is revealed, as shown above, it uncovers all the key elements of the mystery. I believe this square of two degrees is the most elegant creation in magic. I think a magic square like this cannot be made with any order lower than 8.
As the merchant told his man to distribute the contents of one of the baskets of plums "among some children," it would not be permissible to give the complete basketful to one child; and as it was also directed that the man was to give "plums to every child, so that each should receive an equal number," it would also not be allowed to select just as many children as there were plums in a basket and give each child a single plum. Consequently, if the number of Pg 246plums in every basket was a prime number, then the man would be correct in saying that the proposed distribution was quite impossible. Our puzzle, therefore, resolves itself into forming a magic square with nine different prime numbers.
As the merchant instructed his worker to share the contents of one of the baskets of plums “among some children,” it wouldn’t be allowed to give the entire basket to just one child. Furthermore, since it was also specified that the worker was to give “plums to every child, ensuring that each received an equal number,” it wouldn't be acceptable to choose just as many children as there are plums in a basket and give each child one plum. Thus, if the number of Pg 246plums in each basket was a prime number, then the worker would be right in saying that the suggested distribution was completely impossible. Our challenge, then, is to create a magic square using nine different prime numbers.

In Diagram A we have a magic square in prime numbers, and it is the one giving the smallest constant sum that is possible. As to the little trap I mentioned, it is clear that Diagram A is barred out by the words "every basket contained plums," for one plum is not plums. And as we were referred to the baskets, "as shown in the illustration," it is perfectly evident, without actually attempting to count the plums, that there are at any rate more than 7 plums in every basket. Therefore C is also, strictly speaking, barred. Numbers over 20 and under, say, 250 would certainly come well within the range of possibility, and a large number of arrangements would come within these limits. Diagram B is one of them. Of course we can allow for the false bottoms that are so frequently used in the baskets of fruitsellers to make the basket appear to contain more fruit than it really does.
In Diagram A, we see a magic square made up of prime numbers, and it gives the smallest constant sum possible. Regarding the little trap I mentioned, it’s clear that Diagram A is limited by the phrase "every basket contained plums," because one plum isn’t the same as plums. Since we were directed to the baskets, "as shown in the illustration," it’s pretty obvious, without even trying to count the plums, that there are definitely more than 7 plums in every basket. So, C is also, in a strict sense, excluded. Numbers over 20 and under around 250 would certainly fit within the range of possibility, and many arrangements would fall within these limits. Diagram B is one of those. Of course, we can consider the false bottoms that fruit sellers often use in baskets to make them look like they contain more fruit than they actually do.
Several correspondents assumed (on what grounds I cannot think) that in the case of this problem the numbers cannot be in consecutive arithmetical progression, so I give Diagram D to show that they were mistaken. The numbers are 199, 409, 619, 829, 1,039, 1,249, 1,459, 1,669, and 1,879—all primes with a common difference of 210.
Several correspondents assumed (for reasons I can't understand) that in this case, the numbers couldn't be in consecutive arithmetic progression, so I’m providing Diagram D to show that they were wrong. The numbers are 199, 409, 619, 829, 1,039, 1,249, 1,459, 1,669, and 1,879—all primes with a common difference of 210.
There are many different ways of arranging the numbers, and either the 2 or the 3 may be omitted from the "T" enclosure. The arrangement that I give is a "nasik" square. Out of the total of 28,800 nasik squares of the fifth order this is the only one (with its one reflection) that fulfils the "T" condition. This puzzle was suggested to me by Dr. C. Planck.
There are many different ways to arrange the numbers, and either the 2 or the 3 can be left out of the "T" enclosure. The arrangement I’m providing is a "nasik" square. Out of the total of 28,800 nasik squares of the fifth order, this is the only one (along with its one reflection) that meets the "T" condition. This puzzle was suggested to me by Dr. C. Planck.

The problem really amounts to finding the smallest prime such that the next higher prime shall exceed it by 10 at least. If we write out a little list of primes, we shall not need to exceed 150 to discover what we require, for after 113 the next prime is 127. We can then form the square in the diagram, where every number is composite. This is the solution in the smallest numbers. We thus see that the answer is arrived at quite easily, in a square of the third order, by trial. But I propose to show how we may get an answer (not, it is true, the one in smallest numbers) without any tables or trials, but in a very direct and rapid manner.
The issue comes down to finding the smallest prime number such that the next prime number is at least 10 greater. If we list out some prime numbers, we don’t need to go past 150 to find what we’re looking for; after 113, the next prime is 127. We can then create the square in the diagram, where every number is composite. This gives us the solution using the smallest numbers. So, we see that we can easily find the answer in a third-order square by testing. However, I want to show how we can get an answer (though not the one using the smallest numbers) without any tables or trials, in a much more straightforward and faster way.

First write down any consecutive numbers, the smallest being greater than 1—say, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The only factors in these numbers are 2, 3, 5, and 7. We therefore mulPg 247tiply these four numbers together and add the product, 210, to each of the nine numbers. The result is the nine consecutive composite numbers, 212 to 220 inclusive, with which we can form the required square. Every number will necessarily be divisible by its difference from 210. It will be very obvious that by this method we may find as many consecutive composites as ever we please. Suppose, for example, we wish to form a magic square of sixteen such numbers; then the numbers 2 to 17 contain the factors 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17, which, multiplied together, make 510510 to be added to produce the sixteen numbers 510512 to 510527 inclusive, all of which are composite as before.
First, write down any series of consecutive numbers, starting from the smallest one greater than 1—like 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The only factors among these numbers are 2, 3, 5, and 7. So, we multiply these four numbers together and add the product, 210, to each of the nine numbers. This gives us the nine consecutive composite numbers, 212 to 220 inclusive, which we can use to create the required square. Every number will definitely be divisible by its difference from 210. It’s clear that with this method, we can find as many consecutive composites as we like. For example, if we want to create a magic square of sixteen such numbers, then the numbers 2 to 17 include the factors 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17, which, when multiplied together, give 510510. We add this to produce the sixteen numbers 510512 to 510527 inclusive, all of which are composite as before.
But, as I have said, these are not the answers in the smallest numbers: for if we add 523 to the numbers 1 to 16, we get sixteen consecutive composites; and if we add 1,327 to the numbers 1 to 25, we get twenty-five consecutive composites, in each case the smallest numbers possible. Yet if we required to form a magic square of a hundred such numbers, we should find it a big task by means of tables, though by the process I have shown it is quite a simple matter. Even to find thirty-six such numbers you will search the tables up to 10,000 without success, and the difficulty increases in an accelerating ratio with each square of a larger order.
But, as I mentioned, these aren’t the smallest numbers: if we add 523 to the numbers 1 through 16, we get sixteen consecutive composite numbers; and if we add 1,327 to the numbers 1 through 25, we get twenty-five consecutive composite numbers, and in both cases, these are the smallest numbers possible. However, if we need to create a magic square with a hundred such numbers, it would be quite challenging using tables, although the method I showed makes it fairly straightforward. Even to find thirty-six such numbers, you would search the tables up to 10,000 without any luck, and the difficulty increases rapidly with larger squares.

Here each successive number (in numerical order) is a knight's move from the preceding number, and as 64 is a knight's move from 1, the tour is "re-entrant." All the columns and rows add up 260. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect magic square, because the diagonals are incorrect, one adding up 264 and the other 256—requiring only the transfer of 4 from one diagonal to the other. I think this is the best result that has ever been obtained (either re-entrant or not), and nobody can yet say whether a perfect solution is possible or impossible.
Here, each number in sequence is a knight's move from the number before it, and since 64 is a knight's move from 1, the tour is "re-entrant." All the rows and columns add up to 260. Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect magic square because the diagonals don’t match; one adds up to 264 and the other to 256, needing just a transfer of 4 from one diagonal to the other. I believe this is the best result ever achieved (whether re-entrant or not), and no one can say yet whether a perfect solution is possible or impossible.

The explanation of this little fallacy is as follows. The error lies in assuming that the little triangular piece, marked C, is exactly the same height as one of the little squares of the board. As a matter of fact, its height (if we make the sixty-four squares each a square inch) will be 11/7 in. Consequently the rectangle is really 91/7 in. by 7 in., so that the area is sixty-four square inches in either case. Now, although the pieces do fit together exactly to form the perfect rectangle, yet the directions of the horizontal lines in the pieces will not coincide. The new diagram above will make everything quite clear to the reader.
The explanation of this little fallacy is as follows. The mistake is in thinking that the little triangular piece, marked C, is exactly the same height as one of the small squares on the board. In reality, its height (if we consider each of the sixty-four squares to be one square inch) is 11/7 in. Therefore, the rectangle actually measures 91/7 in. by 7 in., making the area sixty-four square inches in both cases. While the pieces fit together perfectly to create the rectangle, the orientation of the horizontal lines in the pieces won't match up. The new diagram above will make everything quite clear to the reader.
Biggs, who saw the smoke, would be first; Carpenter, who saw the bullet strike the water, would be second; and Anderson, who heard the report, would be last of all.
Biggs, who saw the smoke, would go first; Carpenter, who saw the bullet hit the water, would go second; and Anderson, who heard the sound, would be last of all.
When the sun is in the horizon of any place (whether in Japan or elsewhere), he is the length of half the earth's diameter more distant from that place than in his meridian at noon. As the earth's semi-diameter is nearly 4,000 miles, the sun must be considerably more than 3,000 miles nearer at noon than at his rising, there being no valley even the hundredth part of 1,000 miles deep.
When the sun is on the horizon of any location (whether in Japan or anywhere else), it is about half the Earth's diameter further away from that place than it is at noon when it's directly overhead. Since the Earth's radius is nearly 4,000 miles, the sun is actually more than 3,000 miles closer at noon than when it rises, with no valley being even one-hundredth of a thousand miles deep.
The first day of a century can never fall on a Sunday; nor on a Wednesday or a Friday.
The first day of a century can never be a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday.
I will give my complete working of the solution, so that readers may see how easy it is when you know how to proceed. And first of all, as there is an even number of rings, I will say that they may all be taken off in one-third of (2(n + 1) - 2) moves; and since n in our case is 14, all the rings may be taken off in 10,922 moves. Then I say 10,922 - 9,999 = 923, and proceed to find the position when only 923 out of the 10,922 moves remain to be made. Here is the curious method of doing this. It is based on Pg 248the binary scale method used by Monsieur L. Gros, for an account of which see W.W. Rouse Ball's Mathematical Recreations.
I will provide my complete solution so readers can see how simple it is once you know what to do. First, since there’s an even number of rings, I can say they can all be removed in one-third of (2(n + 1) - 2) moves; and since n in our case is 14, all the rings can be taken off in 10,922 moves. Then I calculate 10,922 - 9,999 = 923, and I’ll find the position when only 923 out of the 10,922 moves are left to be made. Here’s the interesting way to do this. It’s based on Pg 248the binary scale method used by Monsieur L. Gros, which you can read about in W.W. Rouse Ball's Mathematical Recreations.
Divide 923 by 2, and we get 461 and the remainder 1; divide 461 by 2, and we get 230 and the remainder 1; divide 230 by 2, and we get 115 and the remainder nought. Keep on dividing by 2 in this way as long as possible, and all the remainders will be found to be 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, the last remainder being to the left and the first remainder to the right. As there are fourteen rings and only ten figures, we place the difference, in the form of four noughts, in brackets to the left, and bracket all those figures that repeat a figure on their left. Then we get the following arrangement: (0 0 0 0) 1 (1 1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 1 (1). This is the correct answer to the puzzle, for if we now place rings below the line to represent the figures in brackets and rings on the line for the other figures, we get the solution in the required form, as below:—
Divide 923 by 2, and we get 461 with a remainder of 1; divide 461 by 2, and we get 230 with a remainder of 1; divide 230 by 2, and we get 115 with a remainder of 0. Keep dividing by 2 like this for as long as you can, and all the remainders will be 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, with the last remainder on the left and the first remainder on the right. Since there are fourteen rings and only ten figures, we place the difference, as four zeroes, in brackets to the left, and bracket all those figures that repeat a figure on their left. This gives us the following arrangement: (0 0 0 0) 1 (1 1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 1 (1). This is the correct answer to the puzzle, because if we now place rings below the line to represent the figures in brackets and rings on the line for the other figures, we get the solution in the required form, as below:—

This is the exact position of the rings after the 9,999th move has been made, and the reader will find that the method shown will solve any similar question, no matter how many rings are on the tiring-irons. But in working the inverse process, where you are required to ascertain the number of moves necessary in order to reach a given position of the rings, the rule will require a little modification, because it does not necessarily follow that the position is one that is actually reached in course of taking off all the rings on the irons, as the reader will presently see. I will here state that where the total number of rings is odd the number of moves required to take them all off is one-third of (2(n + 1) - 1).
This is the exact position of the rings after the 9,999th move. The reader will find that the method shown will solve any similar question, regardless of how many rings are on the tiring-irons. However, when working the inverse process, where you need to determine the number of moves needed to reach a specific ring position, the rule will need a little adjustment. This is because it doesn't always mean that the position is one that can actually be achieved by removing all the rings from the irons, as the reader will soon see. I’ll point out that if the total number of rings is odd, the number of moves required to remove them all is one-third of (2(n + 1) - 1).
With n rings (where n is odd) there are 2n positions counting all on and all off. In 1/3 (2(n+1) + 2) positions they are all removed. The number of positions not used is (1/3)(2n - 2).
With n rings (where n is odd), there are 2n positions when counting all on and all off. In 1/3 (2(n+1) + 2) positions, they are all removed. The number of positions not used is (1/3)(2n - 2).
With n rings (where n is even) there are 2n positions counting all on and all off. In (2(n + 1) + 1) positions they are all removed. The number of positions not used is here (1/3)(2n - 1).
With n rings (where n is even), there are 2n positions considering all on and all off. In (2(n + 1) + 1) positions, they are all removed. The number of positions not used here is (1/3)(2n - 1).
It will be convenient to tabulate a few cases.
It will be helpful to put together a few examples in a table.
No. of Rings. | Total Positions. | Positions used. | Positions not used. |
1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
3 | 8 | 6 | 2 |
5 | 32 | 22 | 10 |
7 | 128 | 86 | 42 |
9 | 512 | 342 | 170 |
2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
4 | 16 | 11 | 5 |
6 | 64 | 43 | 21 |
8 | 256 | 171 | 85 |
10 | 1024 | 683 | 341 |
Note first that the number of positions used is one more than the number of moves required to take all the rings off, because we are including "all on" which is a position but not a move. Then note that the number of positions not used is the same as the number of moves used to take off a set that has one ring fewer. For example, it takes 85 moves to remove 7 rings, and the 42 positions not used are exactly the number of moves required to take off a set of 6 rings. The fact is that if there are 7 rings and you take off the first 6, and then wish to remove the 7th ring, there is no course open to you but to reverse all those 42 moves that never ought to have been made. In other words, you must replace all the 7 rings on the loop and start afresh! You ought first to have taken off 5 rings, to do which you should have taken off 3 rings, and previously to that 1 ring. To take off 6 you first remove 2 and then 4 rings.
Note first that the number of positions used is one more than the number of moves needed to take all the rings off because we're including "all on," which is a position but not a move. Then note that the number of positions not used is the same as the number of moves used to remove a set that has one less ring. For example, it takes 85 moves to remove 7 rings, and the 42 positions not used are exactly the number of moves needed to take off a set of 6 rings. The fact is that if there are 7 rings and you take off the first 6 and then want to remove the 7th ring, you have no choice but to reverse all those 42 moves that shouldn't have been made. In other words, you need to put all 7 rings back on the loop and start over! You should have first taken off 5 rings, which required taking off 3 rings and then taking off 1 ring beforehand. To take off 6, you first remove 2 and then 4 rings.
Number the treads in regular order upwards, 1 to 8. Then proceed as follows: 1 (step back to floor), 1, 2, 3 (2), 3, 4, 5 (4), 5, 6, 7 (6), 7, 8, landing (8), landing. The steps in brackets are taken in a backward direction. It will thus be seen that by returning to the floor after the first step, and then always going three steps forward for one step backward, we perform the required feat in nineteen steps.
Number the treads in order from 1 to 8. Then follow these steps: 1 (step back to the floor), 1, 2, 3 (2), 3, 4, 5 (4), 5, 6, 7 (6), 7, 8, landing (8), landing. The steps in parentheses are done by moving backward. As you can see, by going back to the floor after the first step and then moving three steps forward for every step back, we complete the task in nineteen steps.

First lay three of the pennies in the way shown in Fig. 1. Now hold the remaining two pennies in the position shown in Fig. 2, so that they touch one another at the top, and at the base are in contact with the three horizontally placed coins. Then the five pennies will be equidistant, for every penny will touch every other penny.
First, lay three of the pennies as shown in Fig. 1. Now hold the other two pennies in the position shown in Fig. 2, so that they touch at the top and are resting on the three horizontally placed coins at the bottom. This way, all five pennies will be equally spaced, as each penny will touch every other penny.
The hasty reader will assume that the bookworm, in boring from the first to the last page Pg 249of a book in three volumes, standing in their proper order on the shelves, has to go through all three volumes and four covers. This, in our case, would mean a distance of 9½ in., which is a long way from the correct answer. You will find, on examining any three consecutive volumes on your shelves, that the first page of Vol. I. and the last page of Vol. III. are actually the pages that are nearest to Vol. II., so that the worm would only have to penetrate four covers (together, ½ in.) and the leaves in the second volume (3 in.), or a distance of 3½ inches, in order to tunnel from the first page to the last.
The quick reader might think that the bookworm, starting from the very first page Pg 249 of a book that has three volumes neatly lined up on the shelf, has to flip through all three volumes and four covers. In our case, that would mean a distance of 9½ inches, which is far from the actual answer. If you check any three consecutive volumes on your shelf, you'll find that the first page of Volume I and the last page of Volume III are actually the closest to Volume II. So the worm would only need to go through four covers (a total of ½ inch) and the pages in the second volume (3 inches), making it a total distance of 3½ inches to get from the first page to the last.
To open and rejoin a link costs threepence. Therefore to join the nine pieces into an endless chain would cost 2s. 3d., whereas a new chain would cost 2s. 2d. But if we break up the piece of eight links, these eight will join together the remaining eight pieces at a cost of 2s. But there is a subtle way of even improving on this. Break up the two pieces containing three and four links respectively, and these seven will join together the remaining seven pieces at a cost of only 1s. 9d.
To open and reconnect a link costs three pence. So to link the nine pieces into an endless chain would cost 2s. 3d, while a new chain would cost 2s. 2d. However, if we take apart the piece with eight links, those eight will connect the remaining eight pieces for a cost of 2s. But there's a clever way to do even better. If we break apart the two pieces with three and four links, these seven will connect the remaining seven pieces for only 1s. 9d.
The way the author of the old poser proposed to solve the difficulty was as follows: From the Jew's abode let the Christian and the Turk set out on a tour round the globe, the Christian going due east and the Turk due west. Readers of Edgar Allan Poe's story, Three Sundays in a Week, or of Jules Verne's Round the World in Eighty Days, will know that such a proceeding will result in the Christian's gaining a day and in the Turk's losing a day, so that when they meet again at the house of the Jew their reckoning will agree with his, and all three may keep their Sabbath on the same day. The correctness of this answer, of course, depends on the popular notion as to the definition of a day—the average duration between successive sun-rises. It is an old quibble, and quite sound enough for puzzle purposes. Strictly speaking, the two travellers ought to change their reckonings on passing the 180th meridian; otherwise we have to admit that at the North or South Pole there would only be one Sabbath in seven years.
The way the author of the old riddle suggested solving the issue was like this: The Christian and the Turk should start from the Jew's house and take a trip around the world, with the Christian heading east and the Turk going west. Readers of Edgar Allan Poe's story, Three Sundays in a Week, or Jules Verne's Round the World in Eighty Days, will know that this would result in the Christian gaining a day while the Turk loses a day. So when they meet again at the Jew's house, their time will match up with his, allowing all three to observe their Sabbath on the same day. The accuracy of this answer, of course, relies on the common idea of what a day is—the average time between one sunrise and the next. It's an old trick, but it's valid enough for a puzzle. Technically, the two travelers should adjust their time when passing the 180th meridian; otherwise, we would have to accept that at the North or South Pole, there would only be one Sabbath every seven years.
In this case we were shown a sketch of the brooch exactly as it appeared after the four rubies had been stolen from it. The reader was asked to show the positions from which the stones "may have been taken;" for it is not possible to show precisely how the gems were originally placed, because there are many such ways. But an important point was the statement by Lady Littlewood's brother: "I know the brooch well. It originally contained forty-five stones, and there are now only forty-one. Somebody has stolen four rubies, and then reset as small a number as possible in such a way that there shall always be eight stones in any of the directions you have mentioned."
In this case, we were shown a sketch of the brooch as it looked after the four rubies were stolen from it. The reader was asked to indicate the positions from which the stones "might have been taken;" because it’s impossible to pinpoint exactly how the gems were originally arranged, since there are many possibilities. But an important detail was the statement from Lady Littlewood's brother: "I know the brooch well. It originally had forty-five stones, and now there are only forty-one. Someone has stolen four rubies and then reset as few as possible so that there are always eight stones in any of the directions you mentioned."

The diagram shows the arrangement before the robbery. It will be seen that it was only necessary to reset one ruby—the one in the centre. Any solution involving the resetting of more than one stone is not in accordance with the brother's statement, and must therefore be wrong. The original arrangement was, of course, a little unsymmetrical, and for this reason the brooch was described as "rather eccentric."
The diagram shows the setup before the robbery. It's clear that only one ruby needed to be reset—the one in the center. Any solution that requires resetting more than one stone doesn't match the brother's statement and must, therefore, be incorrect. The original layout was, of course, a bit uneven, which is why the brooch was described as "rather eccentric."

The mystery is made clear by the illustration. It will be seen at once how the two pieces slide together in a diagonal direction.
The illustration clears up the mystery. You can immediately see how the two pieces fit together in a diagonal direction.
The serious blunder that the artist made in this drawing was in depicting the tendrils of
The serious mistake the artist made in this drawing was in showing the tendrils of

the bean climbing spirally as at A above, whereas the French bean, or scarlet runner, the variety clearly selected by the artist in the absence of any authoritative information on the point, always climbs as shown at B. Very few seem to be aware of this curious little fact. Though the bean always insists on a sinistrorsal growth, as B, the hop prefers to climb in a dextrorsal manner, as A. Why, is one of the mysteries that Nature has not yet unfolded.
the bean climbs in a spiral pattern like at A above, while the French bean, or scarlet runner, which the artist clearly chose without any solid information on the matter, always grows as shown at B. Very few people seem to know this interesting little fact. Although the bean consistently grows counterclockwise, as in B, the hop prefers to climb clockwise, as in A. Why this is the case remains one of the mysteries that Nature has yet to reveal.
This puzzle is not nearly so easy as it looks at first sight. It was required to find the smallest possible number of plates that would be necessary to form a set for three hymn-boards, each of which would show the five hymns sung at any particular service, and then to discover the lowest possible cost for the same. The hymn-book contains 700 hymns, and therefore no higher number than 700 could possibly be needed.
This puzzle isn't as simple as it seems at first. The goal was to find the smallest number of plates needed to create a set for three hymn boards, each displaying the five hymns sung at any given service, and then determine the lowest possible cost for that. The hymn book has 700 hymns, so no more than 700 plates could be required.
Now, as we are required to use every legitimate and practical method of economy, it should at once occur to us that the plates must be painted on both sides; indeed, this is such a common practice in cases of this kind that it would readily occur to most solvers. We should also remember that some of the figures may possibly be reversed to form other figures; but as we were given a sketch of the actual shapes of these figures when painted on the plates, it would be seen that though the 6's may be turned upside down to make 9's, none of the other figures can be so treated.
Now, since we need to use every possible practical method for saving resources, it should be obvious that the plates need to be painted on both sides. In fact, this is such a common practice in situations like this that most people would think of it right away. We should also keep in mind that some of the figures might be flipped to create other figures, but since we have a sketch of the actual shapes of these figures when painted on the plates, it’s clear that while the 6's can be turned upside down to become 9's, none of the other figures can be manipulated in that way.
It will be found that in the case of the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, thirty-three of each will be required in order to provide for every possible emergency; in the case of 7, 8, and 0, we can only need thirty of each; while in the case of the figure 6 (which may be reversed for the figure 9) it is necessary to provide exactly forty-two.
It will be found that for the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, thirty-three of each will be needed to cover every possible situation; for the numbers 7, 8, and 0, we will only need thirty of each; while for the number 6 (which can be flipped to become 9), exactly forty-two are required.
It is therefore clear that the total number of figures necessary is 297; but as the figures are painted on both sides of the plates, only 149 such plates are required. At first it would appear as if one of the plates need only have a number on one side, the other side being left blank. But here we come to a rather subtle point in the problem.
It’s clear that the total number of figures needed is 297; however, since the figures are painted on both sides of the plates, only 149 plates are necessary. At first, it might seem like one of the plates only needs a number on one side, leaving the other side blank. But this brings us to a rather subtle point in the problem.
Readers may have remarked that in real life it is sometimes cheaper when making a purchase to buy more articles than we require, on the principle of a reduction on taking a quantity: we get more articles and we pay less. Thus, if we want to buy ten apples, and the price asked is a penny each if bought singly, or ninepence a dozen, we should both save a penny and get two apples more than we wanted by buying the full twelve. In the same way, since there is a regular scale of reduction for plates painted alike, we actually save by having two figures painted on that odd plate. Supposing, for example, that we have thirty plates painted alike with 5 on one side and 6 on the other. The rate would be 4¾d., and the cost 11s. 10½d. But if the odd plate with, say, only a 5 on one side of it have a 6 painted on the other side, we get thirty-one plates at the reduced rate of 4½d., thus saving a farthing on each of the previous thirty, and reducing the cost of the last one from 1s. to 4½d.
Readers may have noticed that in real life, it's often cheaper to buy more items than we actually need because of bulk discounts: we get more items and spend less. For instance, if we want to buy ten apples and the price is one penny each when bought individually, or nine pence for a dozen, we can save a penny and get two extra apples by purchasing the full dozen. Similarly, since there's a standard discount for plates that are all the same design, we can actually save money by having two designs painted on that extra plate. For example, if we have thirty plates that are identical with a 5 on one side and a 6 on the other, the price would be 4¾s 10½s to 4½
But even after these points are all seen there comes in a new difficulty: for although it will be found that all the 8's may be on the backs of the 7's, we cannot have all the 2's on the backs of the 1's, nor all the 4 on the backs of the 3's, etc. There is a great danger, in our attempts to get as many as possible painted alike, of our so adjusting the figures that some particular combination of hymns cannot be represented.
But even after considering all these points, a new challenge arises: while it may be possible for all the 8's to be on the backs of the 7's, we can't place all the 2's on the backs of the 1's, or all the 4's on the backs of the 3's, and so on. There's a significant risk, in our efforts to have as many as possible painted the same way, that we might adjust the figures in such a way that a specific combination of hymns can't be represented.
Here is the solution of the difficulty that was sent to the vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred. Where the sign is placed between two figures, it implies that one of these figures is on one side of the plate and the other on the other side.
Here is the solution to the problem that was sent to the vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred. When the sign is placed between two figures, it means that one of these figures is on one side of the plate and the other is on the opposite side.
d. | £ | s. | d. | |||||
31 | plates painted | 5 X 9 | @ | 4½ | = | 0 | 11 | 7½ |
30 | " | 7 X 8 | @ | 4¾ | = | 0 | 11 | 10½ |
21 | " | 1 X 2 | @ | 7 | = | 0 | 12 | 3 |
21 | " | 3 X 0 | @ | 7 | = | 0 | 12 | 3 |
12 | " | 1 X 3 | @ | 9¼ | = | 0 | 9 | 3 |
12 | " | 2 X 4 | @ | 9¼ | = | 0 | 9 | 3 |
12 | " | 9 X 4 | @ | 9¼ | = | 0 | 9 | 3 |
8 | " | 4 X 0 | @ | 10¼ | = | 0 | 6 | 10 |
1 | " | 5 X 4 | @ | 12 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 |
1 | " | 5 X 0 | @ | 12 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 |
149 | plates @ 6d. each | = | 3 | 14 | 6 | |||
£7 | 19 | 1 |
Of course, if we could increase the number of plates, we might get the painting done for nothing, but such a contingency is prevented by the condition that the fewest possible plates must be provided.
Of course, if we could add more plates, we might be able to finish the painting for free, but that possibility is blocked by the requirement that only the minimum number of plates must be supplied.
The "Hymn-Board Poser" seems to have created extraordinary interest. The immense number of attempts at its solution sent to me from all parts of the United Kingdom and from several Continental countries show a very kind disposition amongst our readers to help the worthy vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred over his parochial difficulty. Every conceivable estimate, from a few shillings up to as high a sum as £1,347, 10s., seems to have come to hand. But the astonishing part of it is that, after going carefully through the tremendous pile of correspondence, I find that only one competitor has succeeded in maintaining the reputation of the Tit-Bits solvers for their capacity to solve anything, and his solution is substantially the same as the one given above, the cost being identical. Some of his figures are differently combined, but his grouping of the plates, as shown in the first column, is exactly the same. Though a large majority of competitors clearly hit upon all the essential points of the puzzle, they completely collapsed in the actual arrangement of the figures. According to their methods, some possible selection of hymns, such as 111, 112, 121, 122,211, cannot be set up. A few correspondents suggested that it might be possible so to paint the 7's that upside down they would appear as 2's or 4's; but this would, of course, be barred out by the fact that a representation of the actual figures to be used was given.
The "Hymn-Board Poser" seems to have generated incredible interest. The huge number of attempts to solve it sent to me from all over the UK and several countries in Europe shows a really nice willingness among our readers to help the deserving vicar of Chumpley St. Winifred with his local issue. Every possible estimate, from just a few shillings up to as much as £1,347, 10s., seems to have come in. But the surprising part is that, after carefully going through the enormous pile of correspondence, I find that only one competitor has managed to uphold the reputation of the Tit-Bits solvers for their ability to solve anything, and his solution is basically the same as the one mentioned above, with the cost being identical. Some of his numbers are combined differently, but his grouping of the plates, as shown in the first column, is exactly the same. Although a large majority of competitors clearly identified all the key points of the puzzle, they totally fell short in the actual arrangement of the numbers. According to their methods, some possible selections of hymns, like 111, 112, 121, 122, 211, can't be created. A few correspondents suggested that it might be possible to paint the 7's so that upside down they would look like 2's or 4's, but this would, of course, be ruled out by the fact that a representation of the actual figures to be used was provided.
The arithmetic of this puzzle is very easy indeed. There were clearly 24 pheasants at the start. Of these 16 were shot dead, 1 was wounded in the wing, and 7 got away. The reader may have concluded that the answer is, therefore, that "seven remained." But as they flew away it is clearly absurd to say that they "remained." Had they done so they would certainly have been killed. Must we then conclude that the 17 that were shot remained, because the others flew away? No; because the question was not "how many remained?" but "how many still remained?" Now the poor bird that was wounded in the wing, though unable to fly, was very active in its painful struggles to run away. The answer is, therefore, that the 16 birds that were shot dead "still remained," or "remained still."
The math in this puzzle is actually quite simple. There were clearly 24 pheasants at the start. Out of those, 16 were shot dead, 1 was wounded in the wing, and 7 got away. You might think the answer is “seven remained.” But since they flew away, it’s clearly silly to say they “remained.” If they had stayed, they would have definitely been killed. So, should we say that the 17 that were shot remained because the others flew away? No, because the question wasn’t “how many remained?” but “how many still remained?” Now, the poor bird that got wounded in the wing, while unable to fly, was very active in its painful attempts to run away. Therefore, the answer is that the 16 birds that were shot dead “still remained” or “remained still.”
Nobody succeeded in solving the puzzle, so I had to let the cat out of the bag—an operation that was dimly foreshadowed by the puss in the original illustration. But I first reminded the reader that this puzzle appeared on April 1, a day on which none of us ever resents being made an "April Fool;" though, as I practically "gave the thing away" by specially drawing attention to the fact that it was All Fools' Day, it was quite remarkable that my correspondents, without a single exception, fell into the trap.
Nobody was able to solve the puzzle, so I had to spill the beans—something that was subtly hinted at by the cat in the original illustration. But first, I reminded the reader that this puzzle came out on April 1, a day when none of us mind being made an "April Fool;" however, since I practically "gave it away" by highlighting that it was All Fools' Day, it was quite surprising that my correspondents, without exception, fell into the trap.
One large body of correspondents held that what the cook loses in stride is exactly made up in greater speed; consequently both advance at the same rate, and the result must be a tie. But another considerable section saw that, though this might be so in a race 200 ft. straight away, it could not really be, because they each go a stated distance at "every bound," and as 100 is not an exact multiple of 3, the gardener at his thirty-fourth bound will go 2 ft. beyond the mark. The gardener will, therefore, run to a point 102 ft. straight away and return (204 ft. in all), and so lose by 4 ft. This point certainly comes into the puzzle. But the most important fact of all is this, that it so happens that the gardener was a pupil from the Horticultural College for Lady Gardeners at, if I remember aright, Swanley; while the cook was a very accomplished French chef of the hemale persuasion! Therefore "she (the gardener) made three bounds to his (the cook's) two." It will now be found that while the gardener is running her 204 ft. in 68 bounds of 3 ft., the somewhat infirm old cook can only make 451/3 of his 2 ft. bounds, which equals 90 ft. 8 in. The result is that the lady gardener wins the race by 109 ft. 4 in. at a moment when the cook is in the air, one-third through his 46th bound.
One large group of correspondents believed that what the cook loses in stride is completely compensated by increased speed; therefore, both competitors move at the same rate, resulting in a tie. However, another significant group recognized that while this might hold true in a 200 ft. straight race, it couldn't really be the case, since they each cover a specific distance with "every bound," and since 100 isn't a perfect multiple of 3, the gardener will overshoot the mark by 2 ft. at his thirty-fourth bound. Consequently, the gardener will run to a point 102 ft. straight away and return (a total of 204 ft.), losing by 4 ft. This detail certainly adds to the puzzle. But the most important fact is that the gardener happened to be a student from the Horticultural College for Lady Gardeners at, if I recall correctly, Swanley; meanwhile, the cook was a highly skilled French chef of the male gender! Therefore, "she (the gardener) made three bounds to his (the cook's) two." It will now be evident that while the gardener is covering her 204 ft. in 68 bounds of 3 ft., the somewhat frail old cook can only manage 451/3 of his 2 ft. bounds, totaling 90 ft. 8 in. As a result, the lady gardener wins the race by 109 ft. 4 in. at the moment when the cook is in the air, one-third of the way through his 46th bound.
The moral of this puzzle is twofold: (1) Never take things for granted in attempting to solve puzzles; (2) always remember All Fools' Day when it comes round. I was not writing of any gardener and cook, but of a particular couple, in "a race that I witnessed." The statement of the eye-witness must therefore be accepted: as the reader was not there, he cannot contradict it. Of course the information supplied was insufficient, but the correct reply was: "Assuming the gardener to be the 'he,' the cook wins by 4 ft.; but if the gardener is the 'she,' then the gardener wins by 109 ft. 4 in." This would have won the prize. Curiously enough, one solitary competitor got on to the right track, but failed to follow it up. He said: "Is this a regular April 1 catch, meaning that they only ran 6 ft. each, and consequently the race was unfinished? If not, I think the following must be the solution, supposing the gardener to be the 'he' and the cook the 'she.'" Though his solution was wrong even in the case he supposed, yet he was the only person who suspected the question of sex.
The moral of this puzzle has two main points: (1) Never take things for granted when trying to solve puzzles; (2) always remember All Fools' Day when it comes around. I wasn't talking about any gardener and cook, but a specific couple, in "a race that I witnessed." The statement from the eye-witness must therefore be accepted: since the reader wasn't there, they can't contradict it. Of course, the information provided was lacking, but the correct answer was: "If we assume the gardener is the 'he,' the cook wins by 4 ft.; but if the gardener is the 'she,' then the gardener wins by 109 ft. 4 in." This would have won the prize. Interestingly, one competitor got on the right track but didn’t follow through. They said: "Is this a regular April 1 joke, meaning that they only ran 6 ft. each, and therefore the race was incomplete? If not, I think the following must be the solution, assuming the gardener is the 'he' and the cook the 'she.'" Although their solution was wrong even in the case they suggested, they were the only one who questioned the gender aspect of the question.
Thirteen coins may be placed as shown.
Thirteen coins can be arranged as shown.

There is no guessing required in this puzzle. It is all a question of elimination. If we can pair off any five of the ladies with their respective husbands, other than husband No. 10, then the remaining lady must be No. 10's wife.
There’s no guessing in this puzzle. It’s all about elimination. If we can match any five of the women with their husbands, except for husband No. 10, then the last woman must be No. 10’s wife.
I will show how this may be done. No. 8 is seen carrying a lady's parasol in the same hand with his walking-stick. But every lady is provided with a parasol, except No. 3; therefore No. 3 may be safely said to be the wife of No. 8. Then No. 12 is holding a bicycle, and the dress-guard and make disclose the fact that it is a lady's bicycle. The only lady in a cycling skirt is No. 5; therefore we conclude that No. 5 is No. 12's wife. Next, the man No. 6 has a dog, and lady No. 11 is seen carrying a dog chain. So we may safely pair No. 6 with No. 11. Then we see that man No. 2 is paying a newsboy for a paper. But we do not pay for newspapers in this way before receiving them, and the gentleman has apparently not taken one from the boy. But lady No. 9 is seen reading a paper. The inference is obvious—that she has sent the boy to her husband for a penny. We therefore pair No. 2 with No. 9. We have now disposed of all the ladies except Nos. 1 and 7, and of all the men except Nos. 4 and 10. On looking at No. 4 we find that he is carrying a coat over his arm, and that the buttons are on the left side;—not on the right, as a man wears them. So it is a lady's coat. But the coat clearly does not belong to No. 1, as she is seen to be wearing a coat already, while No. 7 lady is very lightly clad. We therefore pair No. 7 lady with man No. 4. Now the only lady left is No. 1, and we are consequently forced to the conclusion that she is the wife of No. 10. This is therefore the correct answer.
I will show how this can be done. Number 8 is seen carrying a lady's parasol in the same hand as his walking stick. But every lady has a parasol, except Number 3; therefore, we can safely say that Number 3 is the wife of Number 8. Next, Number 12 is holding a bicycle, and the dress guard and design reveal that it’s a lady’s bike. The only lady in a cycling skirt is Number 5; thus, we conclude that Number 5 is Number 12's wife. Then, the man Number 6 has a dog, and lady Number 11 is seen holding a dog leash. So we can confidently pair Number 6 with Number 11. Now, we notice that man Number 2 is paying a newsboy for a paper. However, we don’t usually pay for newspapers like that before receiving them, and the gentleman doesn’t seem to have taken one from the boy. But lady Number 9 is seen reading a paper. The implication is clear—that she has sent the boy to her husband for a penny. So we pair Number 2 with Number 9. Now we have accounted for all the ladies except for Numbers 1 and 7, and all the men except for Numbers 4 and 10. Looking at Number 4, we see he is carrying a coat over his arm, and the buttons are on the left side—not on the right, where a man would wear them. So it’s a lady’s coat. Yet the coat clearly doesn’t belong to Number 1, as she is already wearing a coat, while Number 7 is dressed very lightly. Therefore, we pair lady Number 7 with man Number 4. Now the only lady left is Number 1, and we must conclude that she is the wife of Number 10. This is the correct answer.
INDEX.
Abbot's Puzzle, The, 20, 161.
—— Window, The, 87, 213.
Academic Courtesies, 18, 160.
Acrostic Puzzle, An, 84, 210.
Adam and Eve and the Apples, 18.
Aeroplanes, The Two, 2, 148.
Age and Kinship Puzzles, 6.
—— Concerning Tommy's, 7, 153.
—— Mamma's, 7, 152.
—— Mrs. Timpkins's, 7, 152.
—— Rover's, 7, 152.
Ages, The Family, 7, 152.
—— Their, 7, 152.
Alcuin, Abbot, 20, 112.
Almonds, The Nine, 64, 195.
Amazons, The, 94, 221.
Andrews, W.S., 125.
Apples, A Deal in, 3, 149.
—— Buying, 6, 151.
—— The Ten, 64, 195.
Approximations in Dissection, 28.
Arithmetical and Algebraical Problems, 1.
—— Various, 17.
Arthur's Knights, King, 77, 203.
Artillerymen's Dilemma, 26, 167.
Asparagus, Bundles of, 140.
Aspects all due South, 137.
Associated Magic Squares, 120.
Axiom, A Puzzling, 138.
Bachet de Méziriac, 90, 109, 112.
Bachet's Square, 90, 216.
Ball Problem, The, 51, 183.
Ball, W.W. Rouse, 109, 204, 248.
Balls, The Glass, 78, 204.
Banker's Puzzle, The, 25, 165.
Bank Holiday Puzzle, A, 73, 201.
Banner Puzzle, The, 46, 179.
—— St. George's, 50, 182.
Barrel Puzzle, The, 109, 235.
Barrels of Balsam, The, 82, 208.
Beanfeast Puzzle, A, 2, 148.
Beef and Sausages, 3, 149.
Beer, The Barrel of, 13, 155.
Bell-ropes, Stealing the, 49, 181.
Bells, The Peal of, 78, 204.
Bergholt, E., 116, 119, 125.
Betsy Ross Puzzle, The, 40, 176.
Bicycle Thief, The, 6, 152.
Bishops—Guarded, 88, 214.
—— in Convocation, 89, 215.
—— Puzzle, A New, 98, 225.
—— Unguarded, 88, 214.
Board, The Chess-, 85.
—— in Compartments, The, 102, 228.
—— Setting the, 105, 231.
Boards with Odd Number of Squares, 86, 212.
Boat, Three Men in a, 78, 204.
Bookworm, The Industrious, 143, 248.
Boothby, Guy, 154.
Box, The Cardboard, 49, 181.
—— The Paper, 40.
Boys and Girls, 67, 197.
Bridges, The Monk and the, 75, 202.
Brigands, The Five, 25, 164.
Brocade, The Squares of, 47, 180.
Bun Puzzle, The, 35, 170.
Busschop, Paul, 172.
Buttons and String Method, 230.
Cab Numbers, The, 15, 157.
Calendar Puzzle, A, 142, 247.
Canterbury Puzzles, The, 14, 28, 58, 117, 121, 195, 202, 205, 206, 212, 213, 217, 233.
Card Frame Puzzle, The, 114, 238.
—— Magic Squares, 123, 244.
—— Players, A Puzzle for, 78, 203.
—— Puzzle, The "T," 115, 239.
—— Triangles, 115, 239.
Cards, The Cross of, 115, 238.
Cardan, 142.
Carroll, Lewis, 43.
Castle Treasure, Stealing the, 113, 237.
Cats, the Wizard's, 42, 178.
Cattle, Judkins's, 6, 151.
—— Market, At a, 1, 148.
Census Puzzle, A, 7, 152.
Century Puzzle, The, 16, 158.
—— The Digital, 16, 159.
Chain Puzzle, A, 144, 249.
—— The Antiquary's, 83, 209.
—— The Cardboard, 40, 176.
Change, Giving, 4, 150.
—— Ways of giving, 151.
Changing Places, 10, 154.
Channel Island, 138.
Charitable Bequest, A, 2, 148
Charity, Indiscriminate, 2, 148.
Checkmate, 107, 233.
Cheesemonger, The Eccentric, 66, 196.
Chequered Board Divisions, 85, 210.
Cherries and Plums, 56, 189.
Chess Puzzles, Dynamical, 96.
—— Statical, 88.
—— Various, 105.
Pg 254
—— Queer, 107, 233.
Chessboard, The, 85.
—— Fallacy, A, 141, 247.
—— Guarded, 95.
—— Non-attacking Arrangements, 96.
—— Problems, 84.
—— Sentence, The, 87, 214.
—— Solitaire, 108, 234.
—— The Chinese, 87, 213.
—— The Crowded, 91, 217.
Chestnuts, Buying, 6, 152.
Chinese Money, 4, 150.
—— Puzzle, Ancient, 107, 233.
—— —— The Fashionable, 43.
Christmas Boxes, The, 4, 150.
—— Present, Mrs. Smiley's, 46, 179.
—— Pudding, The, 43, 178.
Cigar Puzzle, The, 119, 242.
Circle, The Dissected, 69, 197.
Cisterns, How to Make, 54, 188.
Civil Service "Howler," 154.
Clare, John, 58.
Clock Formulæ, 154.
—— Puzzles, 9.
—— The Club, 10, 154.
—— The Railway Station, 11, 155.
Clocks, The Three, 11, 154.
Clothes Line Puzzle, The, 50, 182.
Coast, Round the, 63, 195.
Coincidence, A Queer, 2, 148.
Coins, The Broken, 5, 150.
—— The Ten, 57, 190.
—— Two Ancient, 140.
Combination and Group Problems, 76.
Compasses Puzzle, The, 53, 186.
Composite Magic Squares, 127, 246.
Cone Puzzle, The, 55, 188.
Corn, Reaping the, 20, 161.
Cornfields, Farmer Lawrence's, 101, 227.
Costermonger's Puzzle, The, 6, 152.
Counter Problems, Moving, 58.
—— Puzzle, A New, 98, 225.
—— Solitaire, 107, 234.
Counters, The Coloured, 91, 217.
—— The Forty-nine, 92, 217.
—— The Nine, 14, 156.
—— The Ten, 15, 156.
Crescent Puzzle, The, 52, 184.
Crescents of Byzantium, The Five, 92, 219.
Cricket Match, The Village, 116, 239.
—— Slow, 116, 239.
Cross and Triangle, 35, 169.
—— of Cards, 115, 238.
—— The Folded, 35, 169.
—— The Southern, 93, 220.
Crosses, Counter, 81, 207.
—— from One, Two, 35, 168.
—— —— Three, 169.
Crossing River Problems, 112.
Crusader, The, 106, 232.
Cubes, Sums of, 165.
Cushion Covers, The, 46, 179.
Cutting-out Puzzle, A, 37, 172.
Cyclists' Feast, The, 2, 148.
Dairyman, The Honest, 110, 235.
Definition, A Question of, 23, 163.
De Fonteney, 112.
Deified Puzzle, The, 74, 202.
Delannoy, 112.
De Morgan, A., 27.
De Tudor, Sir Edwyn, 12, 155.
Diabolique Magic Squares, 120.
Diamond Puzzle, The, 74, 202.
Dice, A Trick with, 116, 239.
—— Game, The Montenegrin, 119, 242.
—— Numbers, The, 17, 160.
Die, Painting the, 84, 210,
Digital Analysis, 157, 158.
—— Division, 16, 158.
—— Multiplication, 15, 156.
—— Puzzles, 13.
Digits, Adding the, 16, 158.
—— and Squares, 14, 155.
—— Odd and Even, 14, 156.
Dilemma, An Amazing, 106, 233.
Diophantine Problem, 164.
Dissection Puzzle, An Easy, 35, 170.
—— Puzzles, 27.
—— —— Various, 35.
Dividing Magic Squares, 124.
Division, Digital, 16, 158.
—— Simple, 23, 163.
Doctor's Query, The, 109, 235.
Dogs Puzzle, The Five, 92, 218.
Domestic Economy, 5, 151.
Domino Frame Puzzle, The, 114, 238.
Dominoes in Progression, 114, 237.
—— The Eighteen, 123, 245.
—— The Fifteen, 83, 209.
—— The Five, 114, 238.
Donkey Riding, 13, 155.
Dormitory Puzzle, A, 81, 208.
Dovetailed Block, The, 145, 249.
Drayton's Polyolbion, 58.
Dungeon Puzzle, A, 97, 224.
Dungeons, The Siberian, 123, 244.
—— The Spanish, 122, 244.
Dutchmen's Wives, The, 26, 167.
Dynamical Chess Puzzles, 96.
Earth's Girdle, The, 139.
Educational Times Reprints, 204.
Eggs, A Deal in, 3, 149.
—— Obtaining the, 140.
Election, The Muddletown, 19, 161.
—— The Parish Council, 19, 161.
Eleven, The Mystic, 16, 159.
Elopements, The Four, 113, 237.
Elrick, E., 231.
Engines, The Eight, 61, 194.
Episcopal Visitation, An, 98, 225.
Estate, Farmer Wurzel's, 51, 184.
Estates, The Yorkshire, 51, 183.
Euclid, 31, 138.
Euler, L., 165.
Exchange Puzzle, The, 66, 196.
Fallacy, A Chessboard, 141, 247.
Family Party, A, 8, 153.
Fare, The Passenger's, 13, 155.
Farmer and his Sheep, The, 22, 163.
Fence Problem, A, 21, 162.
Fences, The Landowner's, 42, 178.
Fermat, 164, 168.
Pg 255
Find the Man's Wife, 147, 251.
Fly on the Octahedron, The, 70, 198.
Fog, Mr. Gubbins in a, 18, 161.
Football Players, The, 116, 240.
Fraction, A Puzzling, 138.
Fractions, More Mixed, 16, 159.
Frame Puzzle, The Card, 114, 238.
—— —— The Domino, 114, 238.
Frankenstein, E.N., 232.
Frénicle, B., 119, 168.
Frogs, The Educated, 59, 194-
—— The Four, 103, 229.
—— The Six, 59, 193.
Frost, A.H., 120.
Games, Puzzle, 117.
—— Problems concerning, 114.
Garden, Lady Belinda's, 52, 186.
—— Puzzle, The, 49, 182.
Gardener and the Cook, The, 146, 251.
Geometrical Problems, 27.
—— Puzzles, Various, 49.
George and the Dragon, St., 101, 227.
Getting Upstairs, Such a, 143, 248.
Girdle, the Earth's, 139.
Goat, The Tethered, 53, 186.
Grand Lama's Problem, The, 86, 212.
Grasshopper Puzzle, The, 59, 193.
Greek Cross Puzzles, 28.
—— —— Three from One, 169.
Greyhound Puzzle, The, 101, 227.
Grocer and Draper, The, 5, 151.
Gros, L., 248.
Group Problems, Combination and, 76.
Groups, The Three, 14, 156.
Guarini, 229.
Hairdresser's Puzzle, The, 137.
Halfpennies, Placing, 147, 251.
Hampton Court Maze solved, 133.
Hannah's Puzzle, 75, 202.
Hastings, The Battle of, 23, 164.
Hatfield Maze solved, 136.
Hat Puzzle, The, 67, 196.
Hat-peg Puzzle, The, 93, 221.
Hats, The Wrong, 78, 203.
Hay, The Trusses of, 18, 161.
Heads or Tails, 22, 163.
Hearthrug, Mrs. Hobson's, 37, 172.
Helmholtz, Von, 41.
Honey, The Barrels of, 111, 236.
Honeycomb Puzzle, The, 75, 202.
Horse Race Puzzle, The, 117, 240.
Horseshoes, The Two, 40, 175.
Houdin, 68.
Hydroplane Question, The, 12, 155.
Hymn-board Poser, The, 145, 250.
Icosahedron Puzzle, The, 70, 198.
Jack and the Beanstalk, 145, 249.
Jackson, John, 56.
Jaenisch, C.F. de, 92.
Jampots, Arranging the, 68, 197.
Jealous Husbands, Five, 113, 236.
Joiner's Problem, The, 36, 171.
—— —— Another, 37, 171.
Jolly Gaol-Birds, Eight, 122, 243.
—— —— Nine, 122, 243.
Journey, The Queen's, 100, 227.
—— The Rook's, 96, 224.
Junior Clerks' Puzzle, The, 4, 150.
Juvenile Puzzle, A, 68, 197.
Kangaroos, The Four, 102, 228.
Kelvin, Lord, 41.
Kennel Puzzle, The, 105, 231.
King and the Castles, The, 56, 189.
—— The Forsaken, 106, 232.
Kite-flying Puzzle, A, 54, 187.
Knight-guards, The, 95, 222.
Knights, King Arthur's, 77, 203.
—— Tour, Magic, 127, 247.
—— —— The Cubic, 103, 229.
—— —— The Four, 103, 229.
Labosne, A., 25, 90, 216.
Labourer's Puzzle, The, 18, 160.
Ladies' Diary, 26.
Lagrange, J.L., 9.
Laisant, C.A., 76.
Lamp-posts, Painting the, 19, 161.
Leap Year, 155.
—— —— Ladies, The, 19, 161.
Legacy, A Puzzling, 20, 161.
Legal Difficulty, A, 23, 163.
Le Plongeon, Dr., 29.
Letter Block Puzzle, The, 60, 194.
—— Blocks, The Thirty-six, 91, 216.
—— Puzzle, The Fifteen, 79, 205.
Level Puzzle, The, 74, 202.
Linoleum Cutting, 48, 181.
—— Puzzle, Another, 49, 181.
Lion and the Man, The, 97, 224.
—— Hunting, 94, 222.
Lions and Crowns, 85, 212.
—— The Four, 88, 214.
Lockers Puzzle, The, 14, 156.
Locomotion and Speed Puzzles, 11.
Lodging-house Difficulty, A, 61, 194.
London and Wise, 131.
Loyd, Sam, 8, 43, 44, 98, 144, 232, 233.
Lucas, Edouard, 16, 76, 112, 121.
Luncheons, The City, 77, 203.
MacMahon, Major, 109.
Magic Knight's Tour, 127, 247.
—— Square Problems, 119.
—— —— Card, 123, 244.
—— —— of Composites, 127, 246.
—— —— of Primes, 125.
—— —— of Two Degrees, 125, 245.
—— —— Two New, 125, 245.
—— Strips, 121, 243.
Magics, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing, 124.
Maiden, The Languishing, 97, 224.
Mandarin's Puzzle, The, 103, 230.
—— "T" Puzzle, The, 126, 246.
Marketing, Saturday, 27, 168.
Market Women, The, 3, 149.
Mary and Marmaduke, 7, 152.
Mary, How Old was, 8, 153.
Massacre of Innocents, 139.
Match Mystery, A, 118, 241.
—— Puzzle, A New, 55, 188.
Pg 256
Mates, Thirty-six, 106, 233.
Mazes and how to thread Them, 127.
Measuring, Weighing, and Packing Puzzles, 109.
—— Puzzle, New, 110, 235.
Meeting, The Suffragists', 19, 161.
Mellor, W.M.F., 242.
Ménages, Problême de, 76.
Mersenne, M., 168.
Mice, Catching the, 65, 196.
Milkmaid Puzzle, The, 50, 183.
Millionaire's Perplexity, The, 3, 149.
Mince Pies, The Twelve, 57, 191.
Mine, Inspecting a, 71, 199.
Miners' Holiday, The, 23, 163.
Miser, The Converted, 21, 162.
Mitre, Dissecting a, 35, 170.
Monad, The Great, 39, 174.
Money, A Queer Thing in, 2, 148.
—— Boxes, The Puzzling, 3, 149.
——, Pocket, 3, 149.
—— Puzzles, 1.
—— Puzzle, A New, 2, 148.
——, Square, 3, 149.
Monist, The, 125.
Monk and the Bridges, The, 75, 202.
Monstrosity, The, 108, 234.
Montenegrin Dice Game, The, 119, 242.
Moreau, 76.
Morris, Nine Men's, 58.
Mosaics, A Problem in, 90, 215.
Mother and Daughter, 7, 152.
Motor-car Race, The, 117, 240.
—— Tour, The, 74, 201.
—— Garage Puzzle, The, 62, 195.
Motorists, A Puzzle for, 73, 201.
Mouse-trap Puzzle, The, 80, 206.
Moving Counter Problems, 58.
Multiplication, Digital, 15, 156.
—— Queer, 15, 157.
—— Simple, 23, 163.
Multiplying Magic Squares, 124.
Muncey, J.N., 125.
Murray, Sir James, 44.
Napoleon, 43, 44.
Nasik Magic Squares, 120.
Neighbours, Next-Door, 8, 153.
Newton, Sir Isaac, 56.
Nine Men's Morris, 58.
Notation, Scales of, 149.
Noughts and Crosses, 58, 117.
Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques, 14.
Number Checks Puzzle, The, 16, 158.
Numbers, Curious, 20, 162.
Nuts, The Bag of, 8, 153.
Observation, Defective, 4, 150.
Octahedron, The Fly on the, 70, 198.
Oval, How to draw an, 50, 182.
Ovid's Game, 58.
Packing in Russia, Gold, 111, 236.
—— Puzzles, Measuring, Weighing, and, 109.
—— Puzzle, A, 111, 236.
Pandiagonal Magic Squares, 120.
Papa's Puzzle, 53, 187.
Pappus, 53.
Paradox Party, The, 137.
Party, A Family, 8, 153.
Patchwork Puzzles, 46.
—— Puzzle, Another, 48, 180.
—— The Silk, 34, 168.
Patience, Strand, 116, 239.
Pawns, A Puzzle with, 94, 222.
—— Immovable, 106, 233.
—— The Six, 107, 233.
—— The Two, 105, 231.
Pearls, The Thirty-three, 18, 160.
Pebble Game, The, 117, 240.
Pedigree, A Mixed, 8, 153.
Pellian Equation, 164, 167.
Pennies, The Five, 143, 248.
—— The Twelve, 65, 195.
Pension, Drawing her, 12, 155.
Pentagon and Square, The, 37, 172.
—— Drawing a, 37.
Pfeffermann, M., 125.
Pheasant-Shooting, 146, 251.
Philadelphia Maze solved, 137.
Pierrot's Puzzle, The, 15, 156.
Pigs, The Seven, 41, 177.
Planck, C., 220, 246.
Plane Paradox, 138.
Plantation Puzzle, A, 57, 189.
—— The Burmese, 58, 191.
Plates and Coins, 65, 195.
Plums, The Baskets of, 126, 245.
Poe, E.A., 249.
Points and Lines Problems, 56.
Postage Stamps, The Four, 84, 210.
Post-Office Perplexity, A, 1, 148.
Potato Puzzle, The, 41, 177.
Potatoes, The Basket of, 13, 155.
Precocious Baby, The, 139.
Presents, Buying, 2, 148.
Prime Magic Squares, 125.
Printer's Error, A, 20, 162.
Prisoners, Exercise for, 104, 230.
—— The Ten, 62, 195.
Probabilities, Two Questions in, 5, 150.
Problems concerning Games, 114.
Puss in the Corner, 118, 240.
Puzzle Games, 117.
Pyramid, Painting a, 83, 208.
Pyramids, Square and Triangular, 167.
Pythagoras, 31.
"Queen, The," 120.
Queens and Bishop Puzzle, 93, 219.
—— The Eight, 89, 215.
Queen's Journey, The, 100, 227.
—— Tour, The, 98, 225.
Quilt, Mrs. Perkins's, 47, 180.
Race Puzzle, The Horse-, 117, 240.
—— The Motor-car, 117, 240.
Rackbrane's Little Loss, 21, 163.
Railway Muddle, A, 62, 194.
—— Puzzle, A, 61, 194.
—— Stations, The Three, 49, 182.
Rational Amusement for Winter Evenings, 56.
Rectangles, Counting the, 105, 232.
Reiss, M., 58.
Relationships, Queer, 8, 153.
Reversals, A Puzzle in, 5, 151.
River Axe, Crossing the, 112, 236.
Pg 257
River Problems, Crossing, 112.
Rookery, The, 105, 232.
Rook's Journey, The, 96, 224.
—— Tour, The, 96, 223.
Rooks, The Eight, 88, 214.
—— The Two, 117, 240.
Round Table, The, 80, 205.
Route Problems, Unicursal and, 68.
Ruby Brooch, The, 144, 249.
Sabbath Puzzle, The, 144, 249.
Sailor's Puzzle, The, 71, 199.
Sayles, H.A., 125.
Schoolboys, The Nine, 80, 205.
Schoolgirls, The Fifteen, 80, 204.
Scramble, The Great, 19, 161.
Sculptor's Problem, The, 23, 164.
Second Day of Week, 139.
See-Saw Puzzle, The, 22, 163.
Semi-Nasik Magic Squares, 120.
Senior and Junior, 140.
Sevens, The Four, 17, 160.
Sharp's Puzzle, 230.
Sheepfold, The, 52, 184.
Sheep Pens, The Six, 55, 189.
—— The Sixteen, 80, 206.
—— The Three, 92, 217.
—— Those Fifteen, 77, 203.
Shopping Perplexity, A, 4, 150.
Shuldham, C.D., 125, 126.
Siberian Dungeons, The, 123, 244.
Simpleton, The Village, 11, 155.
Skater, The Scientific, 100, 226.
Skeat, Professor, 127.
Solitaire, Central, 63, 195.
—— Chessboard, 108, 234.
—— Counter, 107, 234.
Sons, The Four, 49, 181.
Spanish Dungeons, The, 122, 244.
—— Miser, The, 24, 164.
Speed and Locomotion Puzzles, 11.
—— Average, 11, 155.
Spiral, Drawing a, 50, 182.
Spot on the Table, The, 17, 160.
Square Numbers, Check for, 13.
—— —— Digital, 16, 159.
—— of Veneer, The, 39, 175.
—— Puzzle, An Easy, 35, 170.
Squares, A Problem in, 23, 163.
—— Circling the, 21, 162.
—— Difference of Two, 167.
—— Magic, 119.
—— Sum of Two, 165, 175.
—— The Chocolate, 35, 170.
Stalemate, 106, 232.
Stamp-licking, The Gentle Art of, 91, 217.
Star Puzzle, The, 99, 226.
Stars, The Eight, 89, 215.
—— The Forty-nine, 100, 226.
Statical Chess Puzzles, 88.
Sticks, The Eight, 53, 186.
Stonemason's Problem, The, 25, 165.
Stop-watch, The, 11, 154.
Strand Magazine, The, 44, 116, 220.
Strand Patience, 116, 239.
Stream, Crossing the, 112, 236.
Strutt, Joseph, 59.
Subtracting Magic Squares, 124.
Sultan's Army, The, 25, 165.
Suppers, The New Year's Eve, 3, 149.
Surname, Find Ada's, 27, 168.
Swastika, The, 29, 31, 169.
"T" Card Puzzle, The, 115, 239.
Table, The Round, 80, 205.
Table-top and Stools, The, 38, 173.
Tangram Paradox, A, 43, 178.
Target, The Cross, 84, 210.
Tarry, 112.
Tartaglia, 25, 109, 112.
Tea, Mixing the, 111, 235.
Telegraph Posts, The, 139.
Tennis Tournament, A, 78, 203.
Tetrahedron, Building the, 82, 208.
Thief, Catching the, 19, 161.
Thrift, A Study in, 25, 166.
Thompson, W.H., 232.
Ticket Puzzle, The Excursion, 5, 151.
Time Puzzle, A, 10, 153.
—— What was the, 10, 153.
Tiring Irons, The, 142, 247.
Tit-Bits, 58, 79, 124, 251.
Torn Number, The, 20, 162.
Torpedo Practice, 67, 196.
Tour, The Cyclists', 71, 199.
—— The Grand, 72, 200.
—— The Queen's, 98, 225.
—— The Rook's, 96, 223.
Towns, Visiting the, 70, 198.
Trains, The Two, 11, 155.
Treasure Boxes, The Nine, 24, 164.
Trees, The Twenty-one, 57, 190.
Trémaux, M., 133, 135.
Triangle, The Dissected, 38, 173.
Triangular Numbers, 13, 25, 166.
—— —— Check for, 13.
Troublesome Eight, The, 121, 242.
Tube Inspector's Puzzle, The, 69, 198.
—— Railway, Heard on the, 8, 153.
Turks and Russians, 58, 191.
Turnings, The Fifteen, 70, 198.
Twickenham Puzzle, The, 60, 194.
Two Pieces Problem, The, 96.
Unclassified Puzzles, 142.
Unicursal and Route Problems, 68.
Union Jack, The, 50, 69, 197.
Vandermonde, A., 58, 103.
Veil, Under the, 90, 216.
Verne, Jules, 249.
Victoria Cross Puzzle, The, 60, 194.
Village, A Wonderful, 142, 247.
Villages, The Three, 12, 155.
Villas, The Eight, 80, 206.
Vortex Rings, 40.
Voter's Puzzle, The, 75, 202.
Wall, The Puzzle, 52, 184.
Wallis, J., 142.
—— (Another), 220.
Walls, The Garden, 52, 185.
Wapshaw's Wharf Mystery, The, 10, 153.
War Puzzle Game, The, 118, 240.
Wassail Bowl, The, 109, 235.
Watch, A Puzzling, 10, 153.
Pg 258
Water, Gas, and Electricity, 73, 200.
Weekly Dispatch, The, 28, 124, 125, 146, 148.
Weighing Puzzles, Measuring, Packing, and, 109.
Wheels, Concerning, 55, 188.
Who was First? 142, 247.
Whyte, W.T., 147.
Widow's Legacy, The, 2, 148.
Wife, Find the Man's, 147, 251.
Wilkinson, Rev. Mr., 193.
Wilson, Professor, 29.
Wilson's Poser, 9, 153.
Wine and Water, 110, 235.
—— The Keg of, 110, 235.
Wotherspoon, G., 244.
Yacht race, The, 99, 226.
Youthful Precocity, 1, 148.
Zeno, 139.
Abbot's Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— The Window, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Academic Etiquette, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Acrostic Puzzle, An, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Adam and Eve and the Apples, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Airplanes, The Two, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Age and Family Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Regarding Tommy's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mamma's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mrs. Timpkins's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Rover's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ages, The Family, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Their, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Alcuin, Abbot, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Almonds, The Nine, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Amazons, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Andrews, W.S., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Apples, a deal in, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Buying, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Ten, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dissection Estimates, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Math and Algebra Problems, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Various, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Arthur's Knights, King, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Artillerymen's Dilemma, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Asparagus Bundles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
All aspects facing south, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Associated Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Axiom, A Puzzling, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Bachet de Méziriac, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__.
Bachet's Square, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ball Problem, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ball, W.W. Rouse, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__.
Balls, The Glass, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Banker's Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bank Holiday Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Banner Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
St. George's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Barrel Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Barrels of Balsam, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Beanfeast Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Beef and Sausages, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Beer, The Barrel of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bell ropes, stealing the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bells, The Sound of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bergholt, E., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__.
Betsy Ross Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Bicycle Thief, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bishops—Cautious, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— in Graduation, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, A New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Unguarded, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Chess Board, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— in Compartments, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Setting the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Boards with an Odd Number of Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Boat, Three Men in a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Book lover, The Diligent, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Boothby, Guy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Box, The Cardboard, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Document, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Kids, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bridges, The Monk and the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Brigands, The Five, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Brocade, The Squares of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Bun Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Busschop, Paul, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Buttons and String Method, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Cab Numbers, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Calendar Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Canterbury Puzzles, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_10__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_11__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_12__.
The Card Frame Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Players, A Puzzle for, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, The "T," __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Triangles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cards, The Cross of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cardan, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Carroll, Lewis, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Castle Treasure, Stealing the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cats, the Wizard's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cattle, Judkins's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Market, At a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Census Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Century Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Digital, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Chain Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Antiquary's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Cardboard, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Change, Giving, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ways to give, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Changing Places, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Channel Island, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Charitable Bequest, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, 148
Charity, Unrestricted, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Checkmate, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cheesemonger, The Eccentric, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Checkered Board Divisions, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cherries and Plums, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Chess Puzzles, Dynamic, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Statistical, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Various, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Pg 254
Queer, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Chessboard, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Fallacy, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cautious, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Non-attacking Setups, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— Issues, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— Sentence, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Solitaire, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Chinese, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Busy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Chestnuts, Purchase, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Chinese Currency, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, Ancient, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— —— The Fashionable, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Christmas Boxes, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Present, Mrs. Smiley's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Pudding, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cigar Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Circle, The Dissected, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cisterns, How to Build, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Civil Service "Howler," __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Clare, John, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Clock Formulas, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Club, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Train Station, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Clocks, The Three, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Clothes Line Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Coast, Round the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Coincidence, A Queer, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Coins, The Broken, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Ten, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Two Ancient, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Combination and Group Problems, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Compasses Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Composite Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cone Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Reaping the Corn, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cornfields, Farmer Lawrence's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Costermonger's Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Counter Issues, Relocation, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— Puzzle, A New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Solitaire, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Counters, The Colored, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Forty-nine, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Nine, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Ten, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Crescent Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Crescents of Byzantium, The Five, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cricket Match, The Village, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Slow, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cross and Triangle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— of Cards, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Folded, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The South, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Crosses, Counter, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— from One, Two, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Three, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Crossing river issues, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Crusader, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Sums of cubes, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Cushion Covers, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cut-Out Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Cyclists' Feast, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dairyman, The Honest, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Definition, A Question of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
De Fonteney, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Deified Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Delannoy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
De Morgan, A., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
De Tudor, Sir Edwyn, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Diabolical Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Diamond Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dice, A Trick with, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Game, The Montenegrin, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Numbers, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Die, Painting the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__,
Digital Analysis, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
— Division, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Multiplication, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Digits, Adding the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— and Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Odd and Even, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dilemma, An Amazing, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Diophantine Problem, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Dissection Puzzle, An Easy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Various, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Dividing Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Division, Digital, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Simple, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Doctor's Question, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dogs Puzzle, The Five, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Domestic Economy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Domino Frame Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dominoes in Progression, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Eighteen, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Fifteen, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Five, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Donkey Riding, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dorm Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dovetailed Block, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Drayton's Polyolbion, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Dungeon Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dungeons, The Siberian, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Spanish, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dutchmen's Wives, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dynamical Chess Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Earth's Belt, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Educational Times Reprints, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Eggs, A Deal in, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Obtaining the __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Election, Muddletown, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Local Council, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Eleven, The Mystic, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Elopements, The Four, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Elrick, E., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Engines, The Eight, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Episcopal Visit, An, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Estate of Farmer Wurzel, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Estates, Yorkshire, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Euclid, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Euler, L., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Exchange Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fallacy, A Chessboard, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Family Party, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fare, The Passenger's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Farmer and His Sheep, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fence Issue, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fences, The Landowner's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fermat, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Pg 255
Find the man's wife, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fly on the Octahedron, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fog, Mr. Gubbins in a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Football Players, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Fraction, A Puzzling, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Fractions, More Mixed, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Frame Puzzle, The Card, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Domino, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Frankenstein, E.N., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Frénicle, B., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Frogs, The Educated, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, 194-
The Four, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Six, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Frost, A.H., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Games, Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Issues regarding, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Lady Belinda's Garden, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Gardener and the Cook, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Geometry Problems, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Puzzles, Various, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
George and the Dragon, St., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Going upstairs, such a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Earth's girdle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Goat, The Tethered, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Grand Lama's Problem, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Grasshopper Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Greek Cross Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Three from One, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Greyhound Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Grocer and Draper, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Gros, L., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Group Issues, Combination and, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Groups, The Three, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Guarini, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Hairdresser's Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Halfpennies, Placement, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hampton Court Maze completed, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Hannah's Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Battle of Hastings, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hatfield Maze figured out, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Hat Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hat-peg Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hats, The Wrong, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hay, The Trusses of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Heads or Tails, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mrs. Hobson's hearth rug, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Helmholtz, Von, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Honey, The Barrels of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Honeycomb Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Horse Race Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Horseshoes, The Two, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Houdin, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Hydroplane Question, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hymn-board Poser, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Icosahedron Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Jack and the Beanstalk, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Jackson, John, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Jaenisch, C.F. de, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Jars, Organizing the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Jealous Husbands, Five, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Joiner's Problem, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Another, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Jolly Inmates, Eight, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Nine, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Journey, The Queen's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Rook's, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Junior Clerks' Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Juvenile Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Kangaroos, The Four, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Kelvin, Lord, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Kennel Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The King and the Castles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Forsaken, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Kite Flying Puzzle, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Knight-guards, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Knights of King Arthur, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Tour, Magic, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Cubic, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Four, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Labosne, A., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__.
Labourer's Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ladies' Diary, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Lagrange, J.L., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Laisant, C.A., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Streetlights, Painting the, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Leap Year, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— —— Ladies, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Legacy, A Puzzling, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Legal Issues, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Dr. Le Plongeon, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Letter Block Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Blocks, The Thirty-six, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, The Fifteen, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Level Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Linoleum Printing, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Puzzle, Another, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Lion and the Man, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Hunting, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Lions and Crowns, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Four, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Lockers Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Movement and Speed Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Lodging-house Issues, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
London and Wise, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Loyd, Sam, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__.
Lucas, Edouard, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__.
Lunches, The City, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
MacMahon, Major, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Magic Knight's Tour, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Square Issues, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— —— Card, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— —— of Composites, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— —— of Primes, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— —— of Two Degrees, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Two New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Strips, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Magic, Subtracting, Multiplying, and Dividing, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Maiden, The Languishing, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mandarin's Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
"T" Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Marketing, Saturday, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Market Women, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mary and Marmaduke, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mary, How Old was, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Massacre of Innocents, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Match Mystery, A, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Puzzle, A New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Pg 256
Friends, Thirty-six, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mazes and how to navigate them, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Measuring, Weighing, and Packing Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— Puzzle, New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Meeting, The Suffragists', __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mellor, W.M.F., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Ménages, Problème de, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Mersenne, M., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Mice, Catching Them, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Milkmaid Puzzle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Millionaire's Dilemma, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mince Pies, The Twelve, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mine, Inspecting a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Miners' Holiday, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Miser, The Converted, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mitre, Analyzing a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Monad, The Great, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Money, A Queer Thing in, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Boxes, The Puzzling, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
——, Pocket, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Puzzles, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
—— Puzzle, A New, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
——, Square, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Monist, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
The Monk and the Bridges, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Monstrosity, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Montenegrin Dice Game, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Moreau, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Morris, Nine Men's Game, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Mosaics, A Problem in, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mother and Daughter, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Car Race, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Tour, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Garage Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Drivers, A Puzzle for, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Mouse Trap Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Moving Counter Issues, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Multiplication, Digital, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Queer, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
—— Simple, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Multiplying Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Muncey, J.N., __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Murray, Sir James, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Napoleon, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Nasik Magic Squares, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Neighbors, Next Door, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Newton, Sir Isaac, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Nine Men's Morris, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Notation, Scales of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Tic-Tac-Toe, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Number Checks Puzzle, The, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Numbers, Curious, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Nuts, The Bag of, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Observation, Defective, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
The Fly on the Octahedron, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
How to draw an oval, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Ovid's Game, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Packing in Russia, Gold, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.
Understood! Please provide the text you'd like me to modernize.
THE END.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!