Puzzle of the Week #512 - 4x4x4 Cube

You might have heard of the puzzle of slicing a 3cm x 3cm x 3cm cube into 27 1cm cubes, and how, even if you are allowed to rearrange the pieces between cuts, it still takes a minimum of six cuts to perform this action. There is a very clever argument that proves it.

Now consider a 4cm x 4cm x 4cm cube, cut into 64 1cm cubes. If you aren’t allowed to rearrange the pieces, will take nine cuts as shown below.

The question is: in the 4x4x4 case, with how few cuts can we slice it into 64 cm cubes if we ARE allowed to rearrange the pieces between cuts?

Puzzle of the Week #508 - Jigsaw

Place the jigsaw pieces into the grid to make a valid crossword. The eight given pieces belong in the eight outer spaces in the grid. The central square is not given: you must reconstruct it yourself. This missing central piece comprises four letters and no blanks.

Puzzle of the Week #505 - Linked Values

In this isosceles triangle, values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ are chosen such that the sides of the triangle are ab, ab and ab/2, and that the line shown going from ‘a’ away from the left  vertex to ‘b’ away from the right vertex forms a right angle. This isn’t enough information to define a and b, however if you know one of them it is possible to calculate the other.

What are all of the solutions where both a and b are integers?

Puzzle of the Week #502 - Almost a Square

* Edited with input from Graham Holmes and Philip Morris Jones.

I don’t believe it is possible to dissect a square into four Pythagorean triangles (a Pythagorean triangle is a right-angled triangle where all the sides are whole numbers). But there are some rectangles that are close to a square that can be so dissected.

Can you dissect each of these rectangles into four Pythagorean triangles?

168 x 169

252 x 253

272 x 273

One of these uses four identical triangles, one uses two pairs of identical triangles, and one uses four different triangles (although two of the triangles are similar).