Once Upon A Time I Saw A Puzzle, Parts I & 2 (1999-2003)

The LAIMA series
Romualdas KAŠUBA
ONCE UPON A TIME I

SA W A P U ZZL E
PART I
UDK 51(o75.2)
Ka 788
R. Kašuba. Once upon a time I saw a puzzle. Part I.

Rīga: University of Latvia, 2008. – 59 pp.
The book demonstrates psychological aspects of problem

solving on the basis of contest problems for junior
students. Nevertheless, the approaches discussed are of
value also for highest grades, for teachers, problem
composers etc. The text can be used by all those who are
preparing to research in mathematics and/ or to math
contests.
The final version was prepared by Ms. Dace Bonka.
 Romualdas Kašuba
ISBN 978 9984 45 045 2

!
" "" "
# !$ #
"" " %
# " &' " ( )
% " &' " *!
+ #
!,!+-./ !0
"" " ! $
1" "
$
!$ " " " 1" !
" !
2 " "
3!
#
" "" " # 3
# "# "
3
" ! 4 #
# "
!
4 "
3 " "
"" # !
# "
! ,! +--- "
) / 5!
" "
" ) # /
5 # .!
" +'
" !
" # "
" 6 " #
" " !
" " ""
# " ! 2 "
"
" 7 "
" !
" " "
3 " # "" " !
4 !
4
" "
# !
" "
" 8 9! ""
# "" "
# "" !
$ " # " "" ""
" "
"
# :
" # " ""
# !
" :
" # "# ;
"" ! "" "
# $ " " ""
" # !
"" " $
" "
# "#
# 2 !
# <
# "! ""
"" " " 3 "
" !
5
" "
$=
!
$ # $=
< > 2 ? @@6 @
# #
" # !
$ " # >
@,A @ #
! "
" 6 " !
$ " # # @ 1$B
"" # !
" # "
!
" = !,
2 @B " 6 "
$ "" #
" !
Romualdas Kašuba
6
ABOUT LAIMA SERIES...........................................................................8
THE FIRST LITHUANIAN MATHEMATICAL OLIMPIAD FOR
YOUNGSTERS (1999)..............................................................................10
THE SECOND LITHUANIAN MATHEMATICAL OLYMPIAD
FOR YOUNGSTERS (2000) ....................................................................28
THE THIRD LITHUANIAN MATHEMATICAL OLYMPIAD
FOR YOUNGSTERS (2001) ....................................................................39
7
In 1990 international team competition “Baltic Way”
was organized for the first time. The competition gained
its name from the mass action in August, 1989, when
over a million of people stood hand by hand along the
road Tallin 9 Riga 9 Vilnius, demonstrating their will for
freedom.
Today “Baltic Way” has all the countries around the
Baltic Sea (and also Iceland) as its participants. Inviting
Iceland is a special case remembering that it was the first
country all over the world, which officially recognized
the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in
1991.
The “Baltic Way” competition has given rise also to
other mathematical activities. One of them is project
LAIMA (Latvian 9 Icelandic Mathematics project). Its
aim is to publish a series of books covering all essential
topics in the area of mathematical competitions.
Mathematical olympiads today have become an
important and essential part of education system. In some
sense they provide high standards for teaching
mathematics on advanced level. Many outstanding
scientists are involved in problem composing for
competitions. Therefore “olympiad curricula”,
considered all over the world, is a good reflection of
important mathematical ideas at elementary level.
At our opinion there are relatively few basic ideas
and relatively few important topics which cover almost
all what international mathematical community has
recognized as worth to be included regularly in the search
8
and promoting of young talents. This (clearly subjective)
opinion is reflected in the list of teaching aids which are
to be prepared within LAIMA project.
Twenty five books have been published so far in
Latvian. They are also available electronically at the
web 9 page of Correspondence Mathematics School of
the University of Latvia http://nms.lu.lv. As LAIMA is
rather a process than a project there is no idea of final
date; many of already published teaching aids are second
and third versions and will be extended regularly.
Benedikt Johannesson, the President of Icelandic
Society of mathematics, inspired LAIMA project in
1996. Being the co9author of many LAIMA publications,
he was also the main sponsor of the project for many
years.
This book is the 7th LAIMA publication in English
and the 32nd in general.
9
Grades 5, 6 and even 7
1. FINDINGS AND ENCODINGS OF JOHNNY

DEAR
Johnny9Dear dreams that he can encode the
following multiplication. Here as usual in both
multiplicands different digits are naturally replaced by
different letters and equal digits – by identical letters. All
other digits are replaced by the same sign 3.
Is it possible for Johnny9Dear, knowing so little, to
decode that multiplication till the very last unknown
digit?
$@,
$@,
33 3 3
3333
3333
333333 3 3
2. SPLIT THAT RECTANGLE IN TWO AND

MAKE THE SQUARE
Smarty Anne would be very eager firstly to split the
rectangle 4×9 into two parts and then form the usual
square from these two parts.
Do you believe that Smarty Anne is indeed able to
succeed in doing that?
10
3. WHO’S FROM THE LIST AND WHO’S
NUMBER ONE HERE?
The bravest captain Robinson Crusoe sailing in the
billowy ocean of Numbers hopes to reach the Island
where all numbers having exactly 100 digits have their
place of residence. Approaching that Island the all9
bravest captain has two wishes:
(☺) to meet any 1009digital number divisible by 100
and with the sum of digits also 100;
(☼) assuming the support of all who might feel
concerned Robinson wishes to find the smallest of
all such numbers.
4. (MEGA)PLATE OF CHOCOLATE AND HOW

TO DIVIDE IT?
Karlsson and Little Brother found the mega
chocolate plate of size 1999×1999 and started in turn to
eat it obeying the following rules. Karlsson, who starts,
may in the usual way take out from that (mega)plate any
piece of size 2×2 and Little Brother – only those of the
smallest 1×1 size. If the player is not able to perform any
more then the other player takes the remaining part of
chocolate.
Is it possible to anyone of them to perform in such a
way that he would always get more than the half of the
whole plate of chocolate independently of what the other
player is doing?
11
SOLUTIONS
A.D. 1999, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 1.
Johnny Dear with his encoding
Of course, the long multiplication is the most
powerful source of information.
We may and we even must ask: why is it so? What
are the reasons for that?
These are questions, which may not necessarily occur
to our Johnny9Dear who has the aim first of all not to
contemplate but rather to find the right answer. But the
question of the kind will obviously remains also for the
Johnny9Dear.
If only he will be able to master that.
This is so powerful first of all because the “long
multiplication” preserves and presents all intermediate
structural information and afterwards, when some
essential part of it is hidden or lost – what appears
sometimes to be the same – even then we are able from
that what is remaining – sometimes from rather small
part – to recover all the information we need or are asked
for.
With that somewhat classical remark all we are able
to state after looking to what is presented is that we are
calculating the square of some 49digital number, all the
digits of which are different, knowing not more than how
many digits all these intermediate results and final result
possess.
We know nothing more and also Johnny9Dear would
know nothing more from the first sight as well as in
general.
12
And is it really so, that nothing more is needed in
order to recover all information?
Let us see and enjoy Johnny’s solution.
Let us imagine that we have some approach also to
his thoughts.
Examining with the quick glimpse what is being
presented within
$@,
$@,
33 3 3
3333
3333
333333 3 3
he immediately concluded that
@=0
because in the “computational part” there are only three
shifts instead of the possible usual four and that exactly
the second computational shift from above is shifted not
by one digit to the left as it is usually done but just by
two.
Technological reason for that is that it is allowed
(such is the common convention) to omit intermediately
shifts consisting of all zeroes.
That was possibly the first of Johnny’s conclusions.
The second conclusion of his might be that he has
interest in number of digits of the final result and how it
is located with respect to intermediate shifts and
especially in our case to that lowest one. From that
location of the final result Johnny concludes at once that
the first digit of the final result must be necessarily 1 and
so the first digit in the lowest intermediate shift is
13
necessarily 9. Plunging that information he may get and
gets
$0,
$0,
33 0 3
3303
9303
133333 3 3
Taking the second glimpse he may have the
following insights or, simply speaking, may notice the
further details like these we are also going to mention:
(A) The second digit of the end result – that is also as
clear as the day – that second digit must be 0;
(B) The “9” in the lowest shift of the “middle block”
indicates that the first digit of his squared number must
be 3 (this is the only possibility to get 9 in the lowest
intermediate shift); so
= 3.
(C) The squared number being 49digital as well as
also all intermediate results being 49digital allow us
conclude together with Johnny9Dear that all remaining
digits of that squared number also do no not exceed 3
(otherwise some intermediate shift would contain more
than 4 digits).
3$0,
3$0,
33 0 3
3303
9303
10333 33 3
The final conclusions – as well as those of Johnny’s
or even ours – might contain the following statements or
14
a small observation that for $ and , being different and
smaller than 3 there are only the following 2 possibilities
left (recall that digit 0 is already used):
$ is 2 and , is 1
or, vice versa,
$ is 1 and , is 2.
The second case is impossible because then we
would get the number 3102 and that number appears too
small because the squared number
3102 ⋅ 3102 = 9622404,
containing only 8 digits instead of needed 9, would be
“too small”.
So it remains only
$=2
and
,=1
leading us with Johnny9Dear to the right answer 3201,
because
3201
3201
3201
6402
9603
10246401
The answer.
3201.

Smarty Anne’s square and how did it all happen
What may Smarty Anne imagine and have in her
mind when she starts? Many things, of course. But it
15
appears somehow natural to suggest that in one form or
another some representation of that rectangle of the size
4×9
will appear in front of her mind’s eyes.

The second possible impression seeing something
like expressions 4×9 is to multiply participating numbers,
to get 36 and then to ask whether it has some connection
to original shape. Naturally it has, because it is the area
of the whole rectangle.
And what about the relations of that area to the area
of the square Smarty Anne is looking for?
Of course, since the area remains the same so the
area of the square is also 36.
If the area of the square is 36, we set that the side of
the square is exactly 6. But if the side of the square is 6,
the square itself looks like this:
So the task is to get this from the initial rectangle.
16
X
Y
Somehow we might imagine that the topmost left
corner of the rectangle 4×9 becomes or remains also the
topmost left corner of the square we are looking for, both
being located in the first part of the section we are going
to make, and the opposite remote bottommost right
corners both are in the other part. Let us denote these
corners in the projected first parts by X and those corners
in the other projected parts as Y. This is similar as if we
were providing some guidelines for the sake of better
orientation. Or we even might say that we are introducing
the frame of references or even that we are dealing with
some specific coordinate system.
So looks this with the rectangle we are starting with,
and the similar picture with the square we are planning to
get would be the following:
X
If we are planning to get the square with one cut

from rectangle so we might assume that some row or
column containing X in the corner might become the first
row or the column of the square we are trying to
17
rearrange. But we are expected to make only one cut. So
we state that the column of the rectangle containing X
ought to contain 6 entries in order to become the first
column of the square but it doesn’t – it contains only 4.
(Similarly about rows.) It means that we will try to take
the row of the rectangle containing X and mark there the
first row of projected square – it will be enough because
it contains 9 entries and we will take the necessary 6
marking them all with X at once. So after first phase of
marking we have in our rectangle
X X X X X X
Dealing symmetrically in the opposite corner with

the entries marked by Y which will be located in another
piece we would get
X X X X X X
Y Y Y Y Y Y
If we will make the similar marking for the second

line once again the similar portion
X X X X X X
And marking the corresponding one for Y’s we

would get some two shifts in one corner with X’s and
18
also some two shifts with Y’s on the opposite corner,
which will be looking as follows
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
But then the region with X has common boundary

with Y indicating already some part of the possible cut.
There are remaining still uninvolved two regions of the
size 2×3 which we for the short while may denote by
bold Z so indicating them additionally in the picture:
X X X X X X Z Z Z
X X X X X X Z Z Z
Z Z Z Y Y Y Y Y Y
Z Z Z Y Y Y Y Y Y
But from two 3×2 parts we may arrange the

remaining two rows of the square attaching the lower part
with Z’s
Z Z Z
Z Z Z
to the topmost left part with X making the X region after
renaming of Z’s to X’s to look as follows
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
19
making from the rest part of the 4×9 square the
remaining part of the section – that with Y’s.
We will indicate all the X and Y entries in the picture
below. The boundary between X and Y became the
border and will be the boundary line of these two cuts.
X X X X X X Y Y Y
X X X X X X Y Y Y
X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y
X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y
Finally we present the square we get :

X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X Y Y Y
X X X Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
The answer.
Smarty Anne can succeed – as it is indicated in
the pictures above.

The numbers of the brave captain McDigit and even
some smaller numbers with the similar flavor.
Simplification of the expected solution
Let us for a joke reduce the problem to some even
simpler problem by taking away or removing one
20
zero from all places where we’ve met some two of
them.
So in such a case the problem will become nicer
because one zero is much more attracting than some
two of them.
The grandson Matthew of the bravest captain of the
billowy Ocean of numbers Mr McDigit dreams to reach
the following island where all the numbers having
exactly 10 digits have its place of residence. According
to strong will of the all9bravest captain that 109digital
number, which he wishes to meet desirably, ought to be
divisible by 10 and 10 ought to be also the sum of its
digits.
The captain is also deeply interested in disclosing the
smallest such number. Could you help him in the case of
urgency or strong need?
Solution of the simplified problem.
The first thought in Matthew’s head and mind when
dealing with it probably was the following one:
It is enough for a number which is really intended to
be divisible by 10 to have a 0 as its last digit – nothing
more is needed – how simple are some matters in our
complicated world!
So that number looks like
ABCDEFGHI0
With all these others A, B,…, being arbitrary one9
digit numbers taking care only of the circumstance that
A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I = 10
or 9 numbers with the sum 10 is needed, so that, e. g.
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2
21
would give us – as one of the possible answers – the
number
1 111 111 120.
It remains to present the smallest possible such
integer number – and the smallest possible integer
number with any property always exists – we are always
able to select the smallest possible number assuming that
there exists at least one wanted number with that
property.
Or simply speaking – if there is at least one such a
positive integer, then among them there is also the
smallest one.
Let us notice that we do not care about the nature of
that problem – we do care only about the existence of one
example – and such an example in our case is being
presented above as a number
1 111 111 120.
The second thought of the grandson was the memory
about the need for the answer to be 109digital number –
that means that its first digit must be at least 1 and
another ones 9 as small as possible – but still first nine
gather 10 as the sum of digits.
Then for example the integers
1 011 011 040, 1 000 020 070, 1 000 000 710
suit much better for the smallest such an number.
It is clear that we must start looking for the smallest
109digital number as the right answer from the first digit
1, and then to try to carry the numbers making the digit
sum which must be 9 as far as possible to the right. This
is possible to achieve writing zeros after 1st digit, which
22
is 1, taking care only about that the sum of remaining 8
integers would be 9
1 000 000 090.
Solution of the simplified problem is
1 000 000 090.
Now solution of the problem of the Captain
McDigit is the imitation of what we just did.
1. First thought of Mr. Mc Digit is that the number
divisible by 100 must end with 00.
2. Its first digit must be at least 1.
3. And then after this first 1 must be assisted by as
many zeros as possible taking care only about that
numbers preceeding the last two zeros must be as big as
possible and with these digits preceeding the last two
zeros we must gather the number sum
100 – 1 = 99
or taking
99 : 9 = 11
9’s and so getting the number
1 000 …. 009 999 999 999 900,
which has first digit 1, then this 1 is followed by
100 – 1 – 11 – 2 = 1000 – 14 = 86
zeros, then these 86 0’s are followed by 11 9’s and then
by the resting two 0’s.
Solution of the original problem of the bravest
captain McDigit is the 100 digital number
1 000 000 …. 009 999 999 999 900
./ 4 ++
23
Karlsson and Little Brother once were consuming
in turn the mega chocolate plate of remarkable size
1999× ×1999, but for the sake of us all and, first of all,
for the clearer solution cutting down and so
remarkably reducing their appetites.
The essence of the problem is that Karlsson is
allowed to take with each his move four times as much
chocolate as Little Brother is – namely Karlsson is
allowed to take in one move as 2×2 parts from every part
of traditionally squared big and large chocolate while
Little Brother in turn takes only 1×1 part.
So from traditional point of view Karlsson is in a
privileged state with each of his moves taking four times
as much as Little Brother does and the only possibility
for Little Brother is the possibility always to make a
move. Correspondingly, his strategy could be to remove
from the chocolate each fourth 1×1 part “in a regular
way”.
Let him try to realize it.
It is clear that the size of the chocolate has only the
psychological meaning so we are always reducing it in
order to milden the psychological pressure and then for
the sake of simplifying let them eat or divide the 10 x 10
chocolate.
Such chocolates may be presented “up to the last its
1×1 piece” as follows:
24
Imagining that the plate is still too big – then let’s
take again the smaller part of it – the 6×6 chocolate plate:
If also now you have some doubt about the way in

which Karlsson and Little Brother may act – so take the
smaller part of even that – the 4×4 plate with the promise
to make stop with our reducing: 4×4 is not so big and the
things, which are going to take place there from the
psychological point of view won’t look thrilling or
complicated more.
Still we, together with Karlsson and Little Brother,
do hope that they will remain involved:
25
So what to do and what might be undertaken?
Let us repeat that the problem would appear not as
challenging as it might be if Karlsson would win. It’s no
wonder and no attraction because he starts and with each
his move swallows 4 times as big 2×2 pieces as the Little
Brother does.
So the Little Brother hoping to get not less than a
half of the whole chocolate must stop Karlsson after his
second move because after the second move Karlsson
would consume
4+4=8
from 16 smallest units of our plate – and this is already a
half.
How could Karlsson be stopped by that young
gentleman Little Brother? What a plan might be invented
in order to realize that honorable entertainment? How to
arrange that Karlsson makes once, takes again and “that
was the end of sweet Molly Malone?”
We already promised that they go down in order to
take even more smaller pieces and even keeping on that
promise we might imagine that this 4×4 is in our mind
fast divided, or better to say, consists of four 2×2 parts.
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
26
So these could be exactly 4 pieces for Karlsson if
Little Brother would disappear or at least would be
present during that whole process of consuming. But
Little brother is present and in 2 seconds he is already
equipped with the clear plan.
The essence of it is:
Karlsson is taking any piece he wishes – I let him
start first – and then I will take something from any
other so eliminating that piece from the “other
takings”.
And if there are still unspoiled pieces for Karlsson
for the second taking so then I will spoil the last 2× ×2
piece taking some 1× ×1 from it.
How this could be brought to some perfection so that
Little Brother could convince Karlsson even before the
game?
Is this possible? Is anybody able to present such a
clear plan before consuming?
Yes, it is!
So Little Brother demonstrated Karlsson the list with
these 16 entries of the 4×4 square. In that square we
expect once again to enjoy 16 entries, all of them being
blank – and we have seen 16 entries indeed, but not all of
them were blank, because some 4 of them were shaded
black. We indicate these fields with the capital letter X:
X X
X X
27
And we have heard the two explanations which Little
Brother made to his opponent. They were indeed as clear
as a day and convincible.
Karlsson is free in his choice, but nevertheless with
each of his takings:
1. Karlsson will remove exactly one entry with X.
2. And I, Little Brother, will remove any other of
remaining entries, which now are marked with X and
which are exactly my size or my tit9bit.
3. So Karlsson would be always stopped at latest
after his second turn.
This indicates that the remaining part of chocolate
will be given to Little Brother.
We remind that 2×2 part is already and exactly one
piece or tit9bit for Karlsson.
And Karlsson nodded agreeing with everything.
It means that in the given case if both are as clever as
possible – and they both are – each of them will get
exactly the half – each of them 8 smallest 1×1 parts.
And in the general case exactly the same idea will
work.
Grades 5, 6 and even 7
1. DRAGONS EMPTYING THE LAKE OF QUEEN

VICTORIA
In the lake of Queen Victoria quells are spraying and
some dragons are non9stop consuming the water of it.
28
If it were 183 of them then they would drink out the
whole water capacities within one day.
If it were 37 of them then they would drink out the
whole water capacities within 5 days.
In what time would the whole water of the lake be
drunk out by the single dragon?
2. KINGS ARTHUR’S ATTENTION FOR

DIVIDING THE PLANE AS A KINGDOM
The king Arthur wishes to indicate the following
thing of importance: in what number of pieces may the
plane be divided by the three lines lying in that plane?
3. EXERCISE FOR SIR LANCELOT

Sir Lancelot used every possibility to train his
abilities in all possible ways. So once during a happy
hour he felt a very strong wish and was very eager to
calculate what is the smallest number, which he could
get, taking up the sum of digits of multiples of 23.
4. PINOCCHIO AND MELVIN EXCHANGING

THE SINGLE TILE
The bottom of the square box of the size 2000×2000
was completely covered by Pinocchio using tiles of the
sizes 2×2 and 1×4. Afterwards Melvin had taken all of
them away for some cleaning and then one of them, that
of size 2×2, went to pieces.
Melvin, which is so excited and feels herself guilty,
still believes that it would be possible to replace that 2×2
tile by another tile of size 1×4 so that the bottom of the
box will be again completely covered by all these tiles
29
while Pinocchio remains very sceptic about such a
possibility.
Who of them – Melvin or Pinocchio – is right and
why?
SOLUTIONS
Drinking out the whole lakes with the uniformly
functioning quells and equally drinking dragons
Of course, it will be again some system of equations.
It’s no wonder because of when several conditions like
now are given then each condition after we’ll give the
name for the heroes would become an equation and we
will be expected to deal with them (successfully by
chance or as usual, we’ll just see!
So let’s start giving names. For whom shall we
surely find a name?
There are undoubtedly some 2 heroes:
1: the day’s portion of the (every) dragon – let’s
denote that not so small portion by ☻, and also
2: the portion or quantity of water the quell is
producing (also day by day) by ♠.
There is also the third remarkable magnitude – that
magnitude being the quantity of water in the lake we are
actually dealing with – let us apply for that a highly
symbolic name ∞.
Now it is high time to rewrite all that was given and
what is expected to reveal.
That 183 dragon9brothers would arrange all the water
∞ within one day will look like follows
30
∞ is as much as 183☻plus ♠
or
183☻ = ∞ + ♠,
and similarly it is also announced that 37 dragon9brother
would arrange the whole drinking entertainment in 5
days, or that
37 X 5☻ = ∞ + 5♠,
which is the same as
185☻ = ∞ + 5♠.
Now we are excellently aware that we are being
asked for some number in parenthesis denoted by = or
=C☻ = ∞ + =C♠.
This is not so hard to achieve. Subtracting the first
from the second we get
2☻ = 4 ♠,
or
☻ = 2 ♠,
theoretical meaning of which in human language is that
the dragons portion is equal to two day lake’s supplies
brought by quells.
Now in order to achieve the wanted equality
=C☻ = ∞ + =C♠
it is enough to the equality
185☻ = ∞ + 5♠ (1)
to add the equality
☻ = 2 ♠,
multiplied by 180 or
180☻ = 360 ♠, (2)
because exactly then the coefficients by ☻and ♠ will
both be equal – and that equal number will again produce
31
something, what would appear to be also highly
symbolic!
So after these promises and good intentions adding
(1) + (2) we finally get
365☻=185☻+180☻=∞+5♠+360♠=∞+365♠,
which gives that the only dragon9brother will drink out
the water of lake during 365 days or exactly in one year.
The answer.
One dragon brother will drink out the whole lake
till the bottom or the last drop of water in one normal
year or in 365 days.

King Arthur’s project to find out definitely in how
many parts the plane might be split by 3 different
lines of as it was investigated by the Scientific Council
of His Majesty.
Solution together with some commentaries added
After some experiment it is more than easy to state
that 3 lines might divide the plane into 4 parts. This
happens when
(☼) those 3 lines are all parallel as it is indicated in
the drawing below
(☺) It is also possible to get even 6 parts when all

these 3 lines are meeting at one points – you may again
take a glimpse at the picture below.
32
But even 6 pieces is not the top extreme case – that
extreme case
(&) are 7 pieces and it takes place when the “interior
area” forms a triangle:
It may say just as Scientific Council did that it is

possible to get the case (&) from the case (☺) by the
some soft shift of one of these 3 lines “from their meeting
point.
All what now remains to do is to prove that there are
no other possible cases.
That is not so difficult to establish.
For that we firstly remove one of these 3
participating lines. Then only 2 participating lines remain
and they
(♪) either divide the plane in 3 parts (being parallel)
or (main case) when they are not parallel and then divide
that plane into
(♫) 4 parts – when they intersect, as it was
mentioned.
And now we are returning that “removed” line back.
33
Then if it had been 3 parts (2 parallel lines) and that
comeback line is parallel to them, then it is exactly the
case (☼).
If that comeback line isn’t parallel to these 2 which
are parallel, then (add case!) they all together divide that
plane into 6 parts.
If the comeback happens in the situation when 2 lines
made already 4 pieces and the returned line passes
through that point of their intersection, then there will be
again 6 parts (only in the other configuration).
And finally – if that comeback line doesn’t pass
through that point of intersection then 3 additional parts
are being added to these existing 4 making total 7 of
them.
The answer granted by Scientific Council and
presented to King Arthur was:
3 lines in the plane can split it in 4, 6 or 7 parts.

What a smallest number may Sir Lancelot get taking
the multiples of 23 and calculating the sums of their
digits?
Solution and some simplest reflections around it
Sir Lancelot was very clever and understood that
having a quick glimpse at some multiples of 23 would do
no harm and would be very useful – practice first of all.
So he wrote at once a dozen of those first multiples,
being numbers
23, 46, 69, 92, 115, 138, 161, 184, 207, 230, 253,
with their sums of digits being
5, 10, 15, 11, 7, 12, 8, 13, 9, 5, 10.
34
He stated that 23 possesses the smallest sum of digits
5, and the distribution of another sums is rather chaotic.
Seeking to get the smallest sum we might have some
plans to get 1 as a sum. Without any doubts that sum or 1
would be the smallest possible sum of any natural
number with any given property – the universal smallest
number stated Sir Lancelot. But what numbers have the
sum of digits 1? These are of course the numbers
1, 10, 100, 1000,….
Neither of them are divisible by 23 because these
numbers are divisible only by 2’s and 5’s or by their
products.
So it would be impossible to get 1 as a digital sum of
some multiple of 23.
Further Lancelot’s perspectives were connected with
the hope to get 2 as a sum of digits of some multiple of
23. Being diligent by the nature and not afraid of any
amount of work he wanted to start writing them down in
order hoping that such a sum will appear – sooner or
later. But if not, what’s then? Or even if it appears but
after a year, what’s then? No one possesses so much time
even if one has enough patience.
Lancelot understood perfectly that the sum of digits 2
have the numbers
2, 20, 200, 200,…,
as well as the numbers
11, 101, 1001, 10001, ….
(possibly with zeroes afterwards).
The history of numbers “2 with some zeroes
afterwards” is very much the same a history of “1 with
some zeroes afterwards” – they are also divisible by
some quantity of 2’s and 5’s and by their products – so
35
again there is no place for the divisibility by 23. AND
THEN sir Lancelot did the main step in order to save his
time and energy in order not to write without any end
these multiples of 23 hoping to get some with the sum 2
in form of “many zeroes between some two 1’s”.
Technically his idea was to take a number “1 with zeroes
afterwards” and waiting in a long division until the
intermediate rest will (if ever) be 16. Why 16? Because
exactly then it is the high time to take another 1 after all
these zeroes getting the number
10000000….1
which is divisible by 23, and all this is demonstrated by
that long division and based on the modest fact that 161
is divisible by 23 being 7 times as much as it.
Realizing it Sir Lancelot got very soon what he
wanted to get – see his notation of long division:
100000000001 23
92 4347826087
80
69
110
92
180
161
190
184
60
46
140
138
200
184
161
161
0
36
indicating that
100000000001 = 23 ⋅ 4347826087 .
We state that the wisdom of Sir Lancelot was very
well based because otherwise writing down multiples of
23 he practically wouldn’t have so much time as to write
4 347 826 087
numbers, which is already comparable with the number
of human population of our globe – or almost one
multiple for each of us living on the Earth!
The (Sir Lancelot’s) answer:
the smallest possible sum of digits of a number,
which is multiple of 23, is exactly 2.

That broken 2× ×2 tile with following attempts to
×4 tile or around the deeds of Melvin
replace it by 1×
and considerations of Pinocchio
Pinocchio must have mentioned and at least clearly
felt something because he, optimist as he always has
been, remains sceptic about that replacing possibility.
Pinocchio must have seen something what remains
meanwhile hidden for us.
First of all 2000×2000 is a bit too large and in order
to simplify it Pinocchio proposed to replace that
2000×2000 by the 6×6 or even by 4×4 box. He is
explaining for all that there’s not any essential difference
between these two and the initial 2000×2000 case. Let’s
listen to him for a while.
And now the main idea or demonstration of certain
circumstances, which made Pinocchio to remain sceptic
37
while Melvin still remained optimistic. Pinocchio
presented two pictures with “each fourth” entry shaded in
a regular way. It is demonstrated in two pictures below.
(◊) (☺).
These shaded entries form a kind of skeleton. In the
case (◊) that skeleton consists of 2×2 or 4 and in the case
(☺) – of 3×3 or 9 entries. In (◊) the bottom would be
covered by 4 tiles. Assume that there are ♣ tiles of the
size 2×2 and ♥ tiles 1×4, which we can also rotate (and to
refer also as to 4×1 tiles).
♣ ♥
4 0
Possible number 3 1
of applied tiles 2 2
of each sort 1 3
0 4
"" " "" "
""
# !
Each 2× ×2 tile covers exactly 1 entry of our
skeleton and that of 1× ×4 (or 4××1) covers either 0 or 2
entries of that skeleton, and exactly this makes the
single replacement of any tile of one sort by tile of
other sort impossible.
38
Let us, for example, try to imagine the case when
three 2×2 tiles and 1×4 tiles completely cover the bottom
of our box AND SAY “NOTICE THAT SUCH
COVERING IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHY?”
This is impossible because each 2×2 tile covers
exactly 1 shaded entry of that skeleton and that of 1×4
covers either 0 or 2 such entries. If the covering were
possible then these three 2×2 tiles together with 1 tile of
size 1×4 would cover either 3 or 5 tiles of the skeleton.
But that skeleton consists of exactly 4 entries.
It means in our case, if the covering is complete then
there must be even number of 1×4 (together with 4×1)
tiles.
But then replacement is indeed impossible because it
always changes the parity, and this is bad.
All other cases are similar – so, for example, in the
6×6 case we would necessarily have odd number of 2×2
and even number of 1×4 tiles – making again no single
replacement impossible!
The answer.
Pinocchio is right and Melvin – not as much!
Grades 5 and 6
1. WINNIE AND 2 KILOS IN 3 WEIGHTINGS

Winnie9the9Pooh came into possession of a sack
containing 9 kg of raisins as well as the balances with 2
plates and one 200 g weight. He woke up early in the
39
morning with the bold project thundering in his head: in
three weightings to get 2 kg of raisins for his coach Piggy
(don’t mix him with Piglet!)
2. THE SINGLE MISTAKE OF MACAVITY THE

MYSTERY CAT
Using telegraph and his extraordinary skills the
Macavity, the Mystery Cat, is able to transfer the
following signs:
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, +, – , X (multiplication sign),
: (division sign) and =(equality sign).
Being excited when transferring the correct equality
Macavity was once mistaken and so the clearly incorrect
equality
9 X 5 + 1045 = 1990
was transmitted.
What could the original equality have been?
Try to indicate all possible answers.
3. ROBINSON CRUSOE AND END POINTS OF 6

LINE SEGMENTS
Once Robinson Crusoe located 6 line
segments in such a way, that they have 6
endpoints all together in common.
Feeling involved he asked Man Friday to
look for some other possibilities, e.g. whether it is
possible that the 6 line segments would have 7 endpoints
in common.
Man Friday, the fundamental worker, demonstrated
that this is possible and also established all other possible
cases for those 6 line segments. What are these other
40
possibilities for 6 line segments? How many endpoints
might they have in common?
4. TOM AND JERRY WITH THEIR ATTEMPTS

Deep in their hearts Tom and Jerry are always eager
to improve that world changing everything in it to best
till the smallest details.
So now getting the following 3×3 table with + and –
signs in each of its 9 entries, which looks as follows:
+ + –
– + +
+ – +
Tom overtook the responsibility for the changes in its
rows and Jerry – in its columns. Tom is allowed to
choose any row as well as Jerry any column and change
all three its signs in that row – as well as Jerry in any
chosen column – by opposite ones. Both of them might
repeat their operations as many times they wish in
arbitrary order.
Their bright dream and everlasting hope is, applying
that procedure and acting together, to make all entries in
that table entirely positive.
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
Assuming that Tom and Jerry indeed can take for this
goal enough time, do they have any chances to realize
their ambitious project?
41
Grades 7 and even 8
1. TWO AIMS OF FAMOUS SANCHEZ PONCHO

Sanchez Poncho hopes to meet a number, which is
not only written using exceptionally the digits 3 and 7
only, but moreover the sum of its digits ought also to be
divisible by these digits 3 and 7 as well.
☻Help Sanchez Poncho to indicate at least one such
positive integer;
◙ Cooperating with him for a longer time if necessary,
make all of us truly believe that Sanchez Poncho
has correctly indicated the smallest such integer.
2. ALICE AFTER WONDERLAND AND WHAT’S

THEN
Only few persons ever heard that after her adventures
Alice became a professor for arts and math. That below
was her favorite equation which she always proposed to
those listeners who wanted to know whether they are
smart in doing simple things. Under these circumstances
the following equation
3 − = 32 + 3 + 2
appeared and the proposal to present to her all pairs (3, )
of integers 3 and satisfying that equation followed, and
all that happened in the following way:
☼ as the prelude Alice asked to present her any pair
(3, ) of integers 3 and satisfying it;
& afterwards if such solution was presented during an
hour then she continued with the question “Are
there still any more solutions?”
42
◙ in a case if the solver after some hours was still
managing the situation, the final request “could you
probably find all pairs (3, ) of integers 3 and
satisfying that equation?” followed.
So our task is to find all pairs (3, ) of integers 3 and
satisfying the given equation.
3. BILLY BOY AND HIS CONVEX HIMALAYA

QUADRANGLE
Billy Boy wandering through the world remains
always curious about the geometrical investigations.
Once upon a time being high in Himalaya Mountains
he clearly noticed on some rock the carved convex
quadrangle 2 , with equal angles , 2 and 2 .
Moreover the length of the side 2 was exactly 1 and
that of , – exactly 3.
Billy Boy believes and wishes to demonstrate to all
us, that the side , is always extending 2.
Do you believe that too and could you, if needed,
even consult the Billy Boy with your advices and
observations?
4. BILLY BOY AND ANOTHER ROCK

On another rock, which was as smooth as only a
sheet of paper might be, Billy Boy found the square 4×4
with 16 entries:
43
In the surroundings of that square Billy Boy also
noticed the figure, which he called “ " ”
and which was made of 4 unit cells exactly of the same
size as the entries of Original Square were:
Seeing that precious material Billy Boy in 2 days

invented two interesting problems:
First of them – or (Ξ) – Billy Boy kindly addressed
to all freshmen and another one (a) – to the intimate
friends of combinatorics.
In (Ξ) freshmen – with all of us – were being asked
the following:
" "" " %×% :
" "
( " * " ""
" D
In (a) the intimate friends were being asked
: "
"" " " #
8 " 9!
SOLUTIONS AND AROUND THEM

A.D. 2001, Grades 5 and even 6, problem 1.
Winnie’s efforts to get 2 kilos in 3 weightings
" 0
"" E " ""
" +' F #
&'' &''' & +' <
" ! 2 " 7
"" " !
44
So he started with the whole amount of 9 kg of
raisins dividing them into “two almost equal parts” using
that 200 g weight on the left and involving all raisins
making both sides equal. It was easy to conclude that
making both sides equal and creating the situation
raisins with 200 g weight on left side being the
same as only raisins on the right side
and involving all 9 kg of it, after that very first if
successful weighting Winnie will get
(♪) 4400 g
from the left side together with
(♫) 4600 g
appearing from the right.
Both 4400 g and 4600 g weight only a little bit more
than 2 times 2 kg so use the balance in the same way as
before with the total amount of raisins being now either
4400 or 4600 g.
Winnie would get from the left side
2100 g dividing that total amount of
(♪) 4400 g
and
2200 g dividing the total amount of
(♫) 4600 g
if we would again split these mentioned quantities into
“two almost equal parts” just as we did before. Naturally
from the right the “complementary” weights or those of
2300 and 2400 g would appear.
But in the second case having 2200 g we are indeed
one step from our aim – and that one step will be the
third final weighting – we will put 200 g weight on the
left and take some raisins from these 2200 g until both
45
sides would be equal. So we would take away exactly
200g from these 2200 g and after that 3 weightings in
that sack with 2200 g just
2200 – 200 = 2000 g
or exactly 2 kg raisins for beloved coach Piggy will
remain.
The answer.
The bold & bright idea of Winnie is realizable.
For details see again the solution if necessary.

The single mistake of Macavity, the Mystery Cat.
Solution and clear things around it
Macavity being the Mystery Cat applied the diligent
idea: looking at that incorrect equality
9 X 5 + 1045 = 1990
which is as close as possible to the correct one and which
contains exactly 13 signs one might try to replace each of
these 13 signs in all possible ways using these allowed 15
signs.
Realizing it and working hard Macavity found the
following 3 possibilities:
(♠) replacing the sign of multiplication X by 4 we’ll
get a correct equality
945 + 1045 = 1990 ;
(♣) replacing the first 9 in the number 1990 by 0
we’ll get again a correct equality
9 X 5 + 1045 = 1090
and also
46
(♦) replacing the second digit 0 of the number 1045
by 9 we’ll also get a correct equality
9 X 5 + 1945 = 1990
The answer.
Macavity, the Mystery Cat, is able to get 3 correct
equalities from the incorrect one by changing only
one sign of it.

Man Friday selecting “as many end points as 6 line
segments might share?”
Around the solution
Clearly 6 line segments cannot possess more than
6 X 2 ═ 12
end points. So 12 is clear upper bound for 6 line
segments.
And what about the lower bound? Clearly 3 points
are too few because then there might be only 3 different
line segments ending in these points – just as it is in
every non9degenerated triangle.
All other cases are realizable – see the drawings
below where all these cases from 4 till 12 are being
shown – in another order.
(12 end points) (11 end points) (10 end points)
47

The answer.
6 line segments might “end in” 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12 points.

Serious minded Tom and Jerry with their projects to
make in that table all entries positive changing signs
in rows and columns.
Around the solution and their perspectives
$G F
This project can’t be realized and entries of the table
cannot be made to be all positive at a time.
This is so because in the corners of that given table
+ + –
– + +
+ – +
48
we have 3 entries with “+ “and 1 with “9“ sign. And now
all understanding of the essence of what’s happening is
contained in that sentence:
After each operation in all 4 corners we will
always have either:
(♪) 3 entries with “+” and 1 with “–” signs
or else
(♫) 3 entries with “–” and 1 with “+” signs
Nothing more is possible to achieve (in corners!)
It means that all attempts to make all “+” signs in
each of 9 entries will fail because in 4 corners we would
enjoy 4 “+”signs then.
But as it was just stated – 4 pluses in 4 corners –
that’s not our case.
In other words this is impossible because this is
impossible already in corners only.
The answer.
No, even serious minded Tom and Jerry cannot
make all entries in that table positive.

Sanchez Poncho task and reality.
Solution and related details
Any fan of googol9type numbers including Sanchez
Poncho and all of us within the advisory board wouldn’t
ever have a slightest doubt that, e.g. the following 429
digit number containing 21 sevens and 21 threes or
777 777 777 777 777 777 777 333 333 333 333 333 333 333
with sum of digits being
21 ⋅ (3 + 7) = 210
49
would be indeed divisible by both digits 3 and 7 and is
one from the possible answers for the Part ☻.
Some much smaller number of the type
7 773 333 333
might also be selected..
◙ It remains to detect the smallest such integer.
We imagine that we just hear the rough voice of
Sanchez Poncho explaining as if for all of us standing
around the current wind mill with Him standing in the
front:
Imagine we have just met such a number. That
honorable number contains
☺ 3’s
as well as
☼ 7’s.
I understand – Sanchez Poncho continued – that both
types of digits are presented. Then the total sum of digits
of that number being
3X☺ + 7X☼
must, as told, be divisible by 3 and also by 7 as well.
Now, 3X☺ is clearly divisible by 3; it follows then
that also the number
(3X☺ + 7X☼ ) – 3 X☺ = 7X☼
is divisible by 3, so that the number
☼
is also divisible by 3.
Similarly the number
☺
is divisible by 7.
So now we’ve demonstrated that the smallest such
number must contain at least seven 3’s and three 7’s or at
least
50
7 + 3 = 10
digits
Clearly the number
3 337 777 777
will resolutely be the smallest among all of them and so
will serve as an answer.
The answer.
Sanchez Poncho absolutely correctly indicated
that the smallest of numbers wanted is the 10 digit
number
3 337 777 777.

Alice after Wonderland with her equation.
Around the solution
0 "# :
3 E H 3I J 3 J I
" K "
&K "" "" (3 * 3
!
First step is simple: we notice that if both 3 and
vanish then nothing remains on either sides – but that
exactly means that the pair
(0; 0)
is a solution of given equation. That simple observation
successfully completes the first or introduction part ☼ of
Alice’s challenge.
The second step would be when only one of those
heroes vanishes while the other remains as it was:
If 3 vanishes and remains as it was then
– = ²
This leads either to
51
=0
or
= –1
and so we get two pairs:
(0; 0) (this is our previous pair)
and the new pair
(0; –1).
Having two solutions we’ve completed also the
middle Part &, and now we are expected present to our
Alice some general method how to detect all possible
integer solutions.
And now, if we seek to find all solutions, then we
must understand that with “pure guessing” we’ll never be
sure not to omit some single pair of suitable integers 3
and .
Where do the boundaries of guessing lay?
Roughly speaking (being finite) we can’t check
infinitely many solutions simply plunging particular
numbers into that equation. Because we have not
infinitely many time. So we must try to solve it in general
or to invent some “finite” procedure which would lead us
to “all solutions”.
And to our astonishment that’s possible because at
that very moment the best student of Alice – that best
student being of course Billy Boy – appeared. And
there’s no need to say that after considerable efforts Billy
did it. He – our hero unnamed – did it! Afterwards there
were some speculations – maybe somebody from the
Advisory Board consulted him. This is not so important.
The main thing is that Billy Boy understood it. Simple
boy. And not so very simple boy.
52
Technical means he demonstrated by that were far
from astonishing – only multiplying both sides by 2 with
the following “square making” and the final conclusion,
which was entirely common sense proposal. Nothing
more. Just take a look. So first multiplication by 2 or
writing that
23 2 + 23 + 2 2 − 23 + 2 = 0
Now, as told, that square making followed
3 2 + 23 + 2 + 3 2 − 23 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 2
leading to
( 3 + ) 2 + ( 3 − 1) 2 + ( + 1) 2 = 2
with the clear common sense conclusion:
Assuming 3 and to be integer numbers and the sum
of three squares to be equal to 2 it must be then that some
two of these squares are 1 and the third is 0. This means
that two expressions within brackets ought to be
±1
and 0 ought to appear within the third brackets.
 3 + = 0,

If  3 − 1 = ±1, then we get pairs (0; 0) and (2; –2)
 + 1 = ±1,

 3 + = ±1,

If  3 − 1 = 0, then we get pairs (1; 0) and (1; –2).
 + 1 = ±1,

 3 + = ±1,

If  3 − 1 = ±1, then we get pairs (2; –1) and (0; –1).
 + 1 = 0,

53
The answer.
These are all in all 6 solutions or
(0; –1), (0; 0), (1; –2), (1; 0), (2; –2), (2; –1)
of that famous equation proposed by Alice as they
were found in our eyes by Billy Boy – we all were
witnesses of that!

Billy Boy and his convex Himalaya quadrangle.
Around the solution
"
" ;
" " "
" " # " !
B 1 C
A 3 D
After repeating that refrain if necessary even thrice –
it’s surely worth repeating – we’ve started to check Billy
Boy’s computations. We’re very much impressed
understanding how effectively he was performing – of
course it wasn’t very difficult.
But nevertheless it was a good job. So he continued
The angle A (former angle DAB) in the triangle
ABD is bigger than the angle B (being the part of angle
ABC, which is as big as DAB). This explains why the
side BD opposite to A is longer than the side AD which
is 3. So
2, > 3 .
54
Another refrain on the triangle stage known for all
who attended to at least three geometry lessons sounds:
6# " "
" !
In our case having in mind the triangle BCD we
might write
2 + ,> ,
or
, +1 > , > 3
ensuring that
, > 2.
as needed.

Billy Boy, another rock and the freshmen or about
how many cells is it enough to shade in order that in
any (probably rotated) “prolonged corner” it would
×1 cell.
be at least one shaded 1×
Let us repeat that “ " ” is made of 4

cells, which are exactly of the same size as the entries of
Original Square. It looks like it is shown below.
Naturally it can also be rotated (but still not overturned!)
55
Let us notice that that “ " ” is very
similar to the Greek letter Γ.
Firstly, we will state the fundamental thing the
importance of which is immense, or say the following
bold but right fact:
2 " ;
Billy Boy, in order to solve that problem for
freshmen, is forced to shade at least 4 cells.
# D
$ # " E " #
%×% : %8 " 9!
#
" E " ! "
&×%
rectangle we can split into two (rotated) “ "

” or Greek letters Γ (also, of course, rotated).
So if our 4 × 4 square consists of exactly 4
nonoverlapping “prolonged corners” then in each such
“prolonged corner” at least one cell must be shaded.
It means that it is absolutely necessary to shade 4
cells.
Now it remains to demonstrate that 4 shaded cells are
enough.
We are forced to find some universal example – but
how could we guess that this is possible?
We couldn’t do it so quickly but Billy Boy one day
found it.
You wouldn’t believe it if you couldn’t see it.
56
But it is possible and we also in Advisory Board
enjoyed that example of Billy Boy. Till this day we do
not exactly understand in what way he came to it. But we
have seen it with our own eyes and moreover we are
ready to demonstrate it also for you. You may also enjoy
it.
Below we demonstrate the universal example of
Billy Boy demonstration that to shadow 4 cells is
enough. As usual the shaded cells will be marked by X.
X X
X X
And no “ " ” (possibly rotated) in the

form of Greek letter Γ may avoid some of these 4 shaded
cells.
We remind that “ " ” may be rotated
but not turned over.
The problem with “ " ”, which could
not only be rotated but also turned over, is already the
advanced problem of Billy Boy for advanced solvers.
Now it will be probably a bit more complicated to
find the answer. It is clear that the previous famous
example of Billy Boy is not valid because if we are
allowed to turn over the prolonged square then in that
example we can find plenty of “ " ” so
similar to that Greek letter Γ.
In that place when it is already permitted not only to
rotate “ " ” but also to turn them over,
Billy Boy demonstrated another example showing that 5
57
shaded cells is enough – you again may take a look to the
picture!
X
X
X X
X
$ % "" !
3 " :
0 "" # % "" !
! 0 # ""
"" !
" G"" # "" "" "
!
"" "" "" ""
"" " "" "
% "" # " !
So we would like to prove that all cells of the lowest
row remain non9shaded.
Consider the 3×2 rectangle of that square containing
the top9left corner cell (in chess notation a2b2b4a4
rectangle).
In that rectangle there must be at least 2 shaded cells
because otherwise we will build a prolonged corner in it.
58
Similarly regarding another 3×2 rectangle containing
the top –right corner cell (in chess notation c2d2d4c4
rectangle) we conclude:
In that rectangle there must be also at least 2 shaded
cells because otherwise we will build a prolonged corner
in that rectangle.
But then in 3 highest rows we will find already all 4
shaded cells.
So the lowest row is non9shaded.
Similarly, also the highest row – modifying what was
just told!
And also the leftmost column as well as rightmost
one are also non9shaded.
So all border cells are non9shaded.
But then many prolonged corners at the border with
non9shaded cells may be demonstrated.
! " # $ %
& '(
X X
X X
! " ) & ) &

* # $ '(
X
X
X X
X
59
The LAIMA series
Romualdas KAŠUBA
R. Kašuba. Once upon a time I saw a puzzle. Part II.
Rīga: University of Latvia, 2008. – 67 pp.
The book demonstrates psychological aspects of problem

solving on the basis of contest problems for junior
students. Nevertheless, the approaches discussed are of
value also for highest grades, for teachers, problem
composers etc. The text can be used by all those who are
preparing to research in mathematics and/ or to math
contests.
The final version was prepared by Ms. Dace Bonka.
The book is printed with the support of the company RIX

TECHNOLOGIES.
 Romualdas Kašuba
Reă. apl. No. 50003107501
Iespiests SIA „Mācību grāmata”, RaiĦa bulv. 19, Rīgā, LV.1586,

tel./fax. 7325322
The Hunting of the Snark,
by Lewis CARROLL, Fit the Second
Once upon a time there happened a day when the

Lithuanian team contest in mathematics was born.
Speaking simply and prosaically, some mathematical
event came into being. In that team contest, five students,
usually from the highest school grades, during 4 hours
have to deal with 20 problems (you may notice that 5
times 4 is also 20 and admit it to be a remarkable fact).
That 1st version of that team contest happened
A.D.1986 and since then it is repeated year by year. With
the time following problem occurred. Imagine that you
are going to Vilnius, the capital city of Lithuania, to
participate in that team contest and I am your younger
brother. I also would like to go to Vilnius with you. And
the elder brother answers, that he has nothing against it.
But in order to go to any capital or otherwise remarkable
city it is better to possess some reason or pretext.
So the author having heard about that and wishing to
help in all such and similar cases invented some pretext
for involved younger brother to go to the capital city with
the elder brothers. He organized, or invented, the
associated individual contest for younger brothers or for
the younger grades.
The organizer had also his own daughter,
approximately of that age, only a bit younger, so his
understanding on the willingness was even deeper.
That first individual contest for youngsters happened
A. D. 1999 and the problems were proposed for younger
sisters and brothers of grades 5, 6 and 7.
Two years later it was split into two subsections with
different problems proposed for grades 5 and even 6 and
another for the forms 7 and even 8.
This year already the 10th edition of that contest took
place.
The author of these lines got a very honourable
proposal to prepare the English version of these
problems together with solutions.
The original intention was to include all of them in
one volume. But rather because of some technical
difficulties or otherwise because of shortage of time it
was decided to split them into 4 parts..
And one more thing should necessarily be told and
explained and even as well as possible. That is the
adoption or harmonization. Otherwise, introducing
characters to make the solution itself a part of their
achievements.
A good part of the first Olympiad problems was
formulated “without heroes”. Then in order to make all
that more attractive all the heroes occurred later,
sometimes even against the will of the composer.
It must be told in a very clear way that practically all
problems as such are taken from other sources and only
after that they are adopted, reformulated or otherwise
structured inventing some steps into which the question
of the problem is divided also in order to make all that
more attractive.
These attempts by the author were welcomed by quite
a lot of involved persons: by students, teachers and
colleagues. Taking that into account and following also
some other reasons and advices I reformulated also all
problems of the previous years.
Listening to all that it is understandable that I tried
to present also the solutions as some kind of discussion
between the persons involved and some imaginary
Advisory Board.
The readers may have their judgment whether the
author succeeded in achieving his goals. All remarks
especially those critical ones would be extremely
welcomed.
The author is thankful for the noble editors of the
LAIMA series for constant inspiring of the author to do
something.
I am very much indebted to the Father of LAIMA
project Professor Benedikt JOHANNESSON, who is the
constructive optimist from any serious point of view you
only may invent or imagine.
I am also very much indebted to Professor Agnis
ANDŽANS, who was the first reviewer of my first
Lithuanian book. He inspired me to make also the
translation of that me first book into English.
I am also very much indebted to Aivaras NOVIKAS
for his eagerness to discuss all things with me every day.
His constant linguistic advices were of great help and
importance.
And of course also great are my thanks to Mrs. Dace
BONKA, who has prepared already three of my English
manuscripts and, as I hope, will have enough patience to
prepare also the fourth one.
Romualdas Kašuba
! "
#
!
In 1990 international team competition “Baltic Way”
was organized for the first time. The competition gained
its name from the mass action in August, 1989, when
over a million of people stood hand by hand along the
road Tallin . Riga . Vilnius, demonstrating their will for
freedom.
Today “Baltic Way” has all the countries around the
Baltic Sea (and also Iceland) as its participants. Inviting
Iceland is a special case remembering that it was the first
country all over the world, which officially recognized
the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in
1991.
The “Baltic Way” competition has given rise also to
other mathematical activities. One of them is project
LAIMA (Latvian . Icelandic Mathematics project). Its
aim is to publish a series of books covering all essential
topics in the area of mathematical competitions.
Mathematical olympiads today have become an
important and essential part of education system. In some
sense they provide high standards for teaching
mathematics on advanced level. Many outstanding
scientists are involved in problem composing for
competitions. Therefore “olympiad curricula”,
considered all over the world, is a good reflection of
important mathematical ideas at elementary level.
At our opinion there are relatively few basic ideas
and relatively few important topics which cover almost
all what international mathematical community has
recognized as worth to be included regularly in the search
and promoting of young talents. This (clearly subjective)
opinion is reflected in the list of teaching aids which are
to be prepared within LAIMA project.
Twenty five books have been published so far in
Latvian. They are also available electronically at the
web . page of Correspondence Mathematics School of
the University of Latvia http://nms.lu.lv. As LAIMA is
rather a process than a project there is no idea of final
date; many of already published teaching aids are second
and third versions and will be extended regularly.
Benedikt Johannesson, the President of Icelandic
Society of mathematics, inspired LAIMA project in
1996. Being the co.author of many LAIMA publications,
he was also the main sponsor of the project for many
years.
This book is the 8th LAIMA publication in English
and the 33rd in general.
$
%&'() &*' (+(*
" ,
Let us agree that if we are excluding some elements

from a set – such things happen every day – then we’ll
say that we are hiring them to that Cheshire Cat, or that
they are His share. In that natural terminology, if we have
the sample
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}
and we make numbers 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to be Cheshire
Cat’s share, then, of course, only the numbers 2, 4 and 8
remain in that sample and the product of those remaining
numbers
2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 8 = 64
is a square (as well as the third and also even the sixth
power of an integer – but we don’t need it!) of an integer
number.
Billy Boy wishes to establish some extreme fact, that
is, he wishes to know precisely:
At least how many integers in that sample must we
make the Cheshire Cat’s share so that the product of the
remaining numbers would be again a square of a natural
number?
"
-
It appeared that Tom, while being furious – and this

is not so seldom and rare – makes from any single piece
of paper 8 smaller pieces, and Jerry even 12. With the
time their furious state lasted for hours, so their
exhausted neighbours confronted themselves with a
series of simple questions. They became interested
whether it is possible that after such a fit state they might
get
(α) 60 (pieces starting) from 1?
(β) 61 from 1?
(γ) even exactly 2002 of them starting from 1?
.
Dulcinea, whose love for arithmetic wasn’t absolute,
according to our understanding, once felt a passion for
doing something that would be particular and in the same
time would have some relation to that famous this is
and always will be right area (which is only another
name for math). So she resolutely decided to find out
whether it is possible or it is not possible to write all the
numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
each of them once, around some circle so that the
difference of every two neighboring numbers would be
not less then 4?
What do you think – will famous Dulcinea succeed?
""
#
Once upon a time there lived in that world only 5 but

very noble integer numbers.
Their magnitudes remained deeply hidden and top
secret, but all their possible sums you could get adding
three of them in every way you could ever imagine taken
in a natural order were known to be exactly these:
10, 14, 15, 16, 17; 17, 18, 21, 22, 24.
In those days, when all number’s life was without
remarkable computational background, it appeared
practically impossible to establish how big each of them
was. But once Man Friday went by. He did it. And we
might ask – why not you?
%&'() &*'
" / !
,
Removing from the collection X of first 8 even
numbers
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16
the sub collection Y consisting from
4, 8, 10, 14 and 16
we might observe that the product of remaining integers
2, 6 and 12
or
2 Z 6 Z12 = 12 Z 12 = 12²
is a square. As you must have already mentioned, in such
a case Y is also said to be the (square) Cheshire Cat’s
share.
"
What a minimal number of elements in collection Y
will such (square) Cheshire Cat’s share now contain?
/
Hare Dare and Wolf Rolf together with Fox
M(ath)ox once found the sharpest equation
3 xy − x − 2 y = 8
in the forest of numbers under the oldest oak.
! Dare is eager to detect two integers x and y such
that they both as one pair (x; y) would suit the equation
they’ve found;
! In a case of success Rolf claims that he would
take care for another such a pair (x; y) of two integers x
and y – should he dare?
! M(ath)ox claims if both Dare and Wolf would be
successful in their care then she also will take care and
she’ll also do and dare find the third successful pair;
! Dare and Rolf under the guidance of M(ath)ox
intend to realize a joint project to find all such pairs (x; y)
of two integers x and y. What do you think, how much of
such pairs would there be?
#
Trapezium is any quadrangle two opposite sides of
which are parallel and another two are not. The diagonal
of isosceles trapezium divides it into two isosceles
triangles. Is it then indeed possible to check out how big
the angles of this trapezium are?
"
,
.
.
0
After her adventures in Wonderland Alice believes in

some natural mysteries. So she does not believe that it
might happen that adding some natural number n with the
sum of it digits S(n) she could ever get the same number
as taking another natural number m and adding it with the
sum of its digits or with the number S(m).
Once in dream, which was not all the dream, Alice
had seen such two natural numbers n and m, which were
different but, when added with the sums of their digits,
become equal. Such integers that
n + S(n) = m + S(m)
are said to form a mysteriously unified pair.
Alice decided to pursue the following three aims:
(X) to detect by her own at least one mysteriously
unified pair;
(Y) to clear out whether there are natural numbers k,
m, n , l such that
k = m + S(m) = n + S(n) = l + S(l);
(☺) to find out whether it is possible to detect some
23 such numbers instead of only three numbers k,
m, n.
"
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5 "
6( )5&44()7 12))834( 6()68%( &7,) )6&%( 8* 76( )(7
9": : : : : : : ;
62<=67) %(4&7(' 72 76( )24<782*
We remind that the possible (square) Cheshire Cat’s
share in any finite number set is any subset or part of it
after removing which the product of remaining numbers
is a square of an integer.
We must answer the question about the smallest
possible (square) share in the set of first 8 natural
integers.
Clearly – that’s our first observation – that 1, if
present, must always remain if only we are taking care
about minimal possible (square) Cheshire Cat’s share.
Also it is obvious that if the product of all integers of
a number set is already a square of an integer then it is
possible that Cheshire Cat may be vanishing with
nothing.
That wouldn’t be so in our case because the product
of all our 8 first initial numbers or the product
1Z2Z3Z4Z5Z6Z7Z8
is
1 Z 2 Z 3 Z (2 Z 2) Z 5 Z (2 Z 3) Z 7 Z (2 Z 2 Z 2),
which is the same as
(2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z 2) Z (3 Z 3) Z 5 Z 7
and, according to our convenient common abbreviations,
is equal to
2 7 ⋅ 32 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 .
That number is in no way big. It is just
40 320.
"
It is not a square because if it was a square then all
degrees in that expression were even – but in our case not
all of them are! So we can help that either omitting some
of them completely or lowering some of them.
Proceeding in that way we must, of course, omit 5
together with 7 and somehow to lower the power of 2 up
to even number. For that we must omit at least at least 3
integers: the only possibility to lower the degree of 5
(and 7) is to omit 5 (and 7), that is, both of them (already
this makes the minimal Cat’s share consisting of not less
than 2 numbers). In addition we naturally must also to
lower the degree of two (and that will add the third
element to any possible share).
So the minimal share will contain at least 3 elements.
It remains to demonstrate that this is possible.
Indeed, removing only
2, 5 and 7
we clearly see the product of remaining integers being
2 6 ⋅ 32
or
576 = 24 Z 24 = 242
.
6( &*)>(%
6( 4(&)7 12))834( )?<&%(! 6()68%( &7,) )6&%(
@2*7&8*) (4(5(*7)
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5

25 &*' -(%%A =27 B<%82<) B2% & 42*=
6(* 25 8) B<%82<) 6( 5&C() 8* & )(@2*' B%25 "
18(@( 2B 1&1(% 8*)7(&'0 &*' -(%%A >2<4' 5&C( (+(*
" B%25 76&7 5&=8*8*= 76&7 76(A >2<4' %(5&8*
"
B<%82<) 42*= (*2<=6 @2<4' 76(A 32760 &@78*= 72=(76(%0
1%2'<@(
18(@():
" 18(@():
18(@()
)7&%78*= &4>&A) B%25 76&7 )8*=4( 18(@( 2B 1&1(%D
*)7(&' &*' &%2<*' 76( )24<782*
Dealing with arithmetical problems and other
exciting matters not the first day and regarding these
neighboring integers
60 and 61
we might naturally expect that highly probably one of
them would be possible to get while other would not.
The all first question then would be – why?
Dealing with these cases after achieving some
insights and making progress we’ll probably get some
remarkable understanding about our chances concerning
that case with 2002 pieces.
Simply observing how the things with furious Tom
and Jerry are continuing we noticed immediately that
after single action of Tom we would have a total increase
of 7 pieces. That is as clear as a day because
1 “old” piece is vanishing while 8 “new” pieces are
appearing so that their difference makes
8–1=7
and that’s why we claim that 7 is the total increase a
number of paper pieces.
In the case of Jerry the principle remains the same,
only “the number of appearing pieces is remarkably
higher”:
"
1 “old” piece is vanishing while already 12 “new”
pieces are appearing making that increase being
12 – 1 = 11
and so 11 is the higher increase.
Modeling that and continuing our scientific
discussions we could say that it is the same as if they
would take the number 1 and then Tom would go on
adding 7 to what he has while Jerry even 11, and then the
question would be whether consequently processing in
that way they ever could get 60, 61 or even 2002 pieces.
We also may assume that they both remain furious –
otherwise they would lose temper and stop adding their
7’s and 11’s.!
Let us see where they could land with their
consequence in anger.
Still another breaking idea might appear. Imagine
that it is possible to achieve, say, 60 pieces starting from
the single piece or 60 from 1. We could quickly start
imagining and easily assuming that their angels (they
just as we all believe in angels) are dealing together but
doing something rather opposite as they are:
They are reducing for 7 or 11 instead of adding like
Tom and Jerry are. In addition they are starting from 60
and not from 1 like Tom and Jerry are. Nevertheless the
task of angels seems to be easier and be also applied by
Tom and Jerry – or they may start cooperating as usually
people do with their angels!
So let us overwrite all this:
Tom and Jerry – being no more furious but already
arithmetically engaged – start together with their angels
from the number, say, 61. They may freely and in any
consequence apply 2 procedures:
"
(Θ) Subtract 7;
or
(Ξ) Subtract 11.
The question is whether they are able to land at
1applying these 2 procedures.
There is not the slightest doubt that afterwards the
task will be how to land at 1 changing the start number
firstly to
60
and then rather boldly even to
2002!
We frankly say that the affair with landing at 1 when
started by 61 went smoothly – take just a look and enjoy
the whole.
61 → Θ → 54 → Θ → 47→ Θ → 40→ Θ →33 → Θ →
26 → Θ → 19→ Θ → 12 → Ξ → 1
and we arrived at 1 as we dreamed and needed.
We equally frankly say that it appeared already
impossible – even with the strong interfere of angels – to
land at 1 applying the same procedures when we are
starting from 60 instead of former successful 61.
You understand what does it mean?
Even with the help of angels you cannot do such
simple thing.
Then how will it be in the wicked case – 2002!
It is slightly thrilling even to start thinking about
these endless possibilities and our desperate attempts to
get through all that number industry.
Let us act preserving cool head and go on simply
analyzing all this. It ought not to be so difficult and
hopeless as it might seem. The science will help us.
"$
We will start analyzing – why it indeed appeared
impossible to get 1 starting from 60? Still we do
remember how easy we landed at 1 starting from 61.
Let us assume the contrary and see what will happen.
Let us assume that landing at 1 starting from 60 is
possible.
Getting 1 from 60 means reducing of
60 – 1 = 59
pieces after applying some number ☼ of operations of
Θ type (“subtract 7”)
together with some another number ☺of operation of
(Ξ) type (“subtract 11”).
If it is possible to get 1 starting from 60 then it must
naturally be that
7☼ + 11☺ = 59
Now always remember that ☺ and ☼ mean exactly
how many times Tom, Jerry, their angels with all of us as
observers applied these operations. So ☺ and ☼ might
be only 1, 2, 3, …, or even possible 0 – that would
indicate that the given procedure wasn’t applied or
otherwise involved.
But collecting those needed 59 using 7’s and 11’s or
their multiplies we have only very few possibilities or
exactly these ones:
Imagine☺ would be 0; then 7☼ = 59 but this is
impossible in integers;
And “☺ = 6” would already mean
7☼ = – 7
or
☼ = –1
(☼ is an integer – before it never was – but it’s of little
help because it’s negative!)
and so that is “more than impossible” – could you ever
imagine yourself doing something “minus once”?
So there are no possibilities for the equation
7☼ + 11☺ = 59
to be solved in non.negative integers ☺ and ☼.
Still it could be repeated that in the same time it is
possible to solve in positive integers the “neighboring”
and so similar equation
7☼ + 11☺ = 60
because as we all remember detecting that
(☼; ☺) = (7; 1)
is the sure solution because nobody could deny the fact
that:
7 Z 7 + 11 Z 1 = 60!
Now the main case is how to land at 1 starting from
2002? That would mean exactly the ability to solve in
non.negative integers the equation
7☼ + 11☺ = 2001.
We have seen in what way it was done. It was indeed
so simple. No theory at all was either applied or needed.
All what we’ll hear in the coming process of solving
"
would be the following fact, which is clear without any
modification, translation or other explanation:
If in the correct equality
a+b=c
2 of 3 performers, those two of
a, b, c,
are indeed integers then so is also the third performer!
We will refer to that fact by saying
“2 from 3 well, all of them well”.
It was followed by the following words:
7☼ + 11☺ = 2001 "!
implies
7☼ = 2001 −11☺
or after reordering
7☼ = 2001 −11☺ = 2002 −14☺ – 1 + 3☺ =
= 7(286 − 2☺) + (3☺ – 1).
After division by 7 we get
☼ = (286 − 2☺) + (3☺ – 1)/7 !
Now we apply for the first time that “2 from 3 well,
all of them well” or, more prosaically, that:
☼ and 286 − 2☺
being integers,
(3☺ – 1)/7
also is forced to be one! Giving to that third integer the
special new name ◙ or setting
◙ = (3☺ – 1)/7
we’ll have
7◙ = 3☺ – 1
or
3☺ = 7◙ + 1
Again reordering
3☺ = 6 ◙ + ◙ + 1
we enjoy for the second time “2 from 3 well, all of them
well”!
☺ = 2 ◙ + (◙ + 1)/3 !
Again the same expressed in everyday words sounds
as follows:
☺ and 2 ◙
being integers, also
(◙ + 1)/3
is forced be an integer. Long may live under the name ♣
after setting
♣ = (◙ + 1)/3 !
meaning that
3♣= ◙+1
or
◙ =3♣−1
Now we are coming back expressing these initial
heroes’ ☼ and ☺ also in terms of ♣.
From ! and ! we conclude that
☺ = 2 ◙ + (◙ + 1)/3 = 2(3 ♣ − 1) + ♣ = 7 ♣ − 2
and using !
☼ = 286 − 2☺+ (3☺ – 1)/7 = 286 − 2☺+ ◙ =
= 286 – 2(7 ♣ − 2) + 3 ♣ − 1 = 289 – 11♣
we finally enjoy that
☼ = 289 – 11♣
☺=7♣−2
Let us check that we did everything correctly.
Indeed, plunging these expressions into initial equation
"! or into
7☼ + 11☺ = 2001
we’ll get
7(289 – 11♣) + 11(7 ♣ − 2) = 2001
or
2023 – 77♣ + 77 ♣ – 22 = 2001,
leading us to the desired tautology in form of
2001 = 2001.
Instead of final remarks we’ll say what follows.
What do we achieve and establishe? We do achieve
that the series
(289 – 11♣; 7 ♣ − 2 )
forms a solution series for the equation
7☼ + 11☺ = 2001
independently from what value ♣ takes!
And that ♣ should be an integer from the very
infinite set
{… – 3; – 2; – 1; 0; 1; 2; 3;….}.
Of course, those two celebrated expressions should
be non.negative.
So taking ♣ for instance 1, we will get a particular
solution
(289 – 11 Z 1; 7 Z 1 − 2)
or
(278; 5)
which means that there are 278 single deeds of Tom (8
from 1) and only 5 of Jerry (12 from 1).
And by the way that isn’t the only possibility for the
brothers dealing together to produce 2002 from 1.
6( &*)>(%
7 8) 12))834( 72 =(7 " 2% (+(* 18(@() 2B 1&1(%
)7&%78*= B%25 & )8*=4( 18(@( 3<7 87 8) 8512))834( 72 =(7
18(@() )7&%78*= B%25 76&7 )8*=4( 18(@(
0 =%&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5
8%)7 5&76 1(%82' 2B <4@8*(& 72=(76(% >876 76( B8%)7
)<@@()) E >( &%( *27 =28*= 72 68'( 76( 7%<76F!
In the preliminary preamble it came out that
Dulcinea wasn’t a fan of math. Nevertheless, being
resolute she did it.
We would like to remind you that she was asked to
find out whether it is possible to write around the circle
all integers 1 to 10 with pairwise differences of any two
neighbors not less then 4.
You may wonder, you may smile, but you can not
deny that at that point she was smart.
Look here! She did it! She did it!
Below we present her answer.
5 9
10
1 4
6 8
2 7 3
6( @2%%(@7 &*)>(% E A()0 87 8) 12))834(0 &*'
<4@8*(& 5&*&=(' 72 =(7 &44 8*7(=(%) " 72 " &%2<*'
76( @8%@4( 8* 76( >&A 76&7 & '8BB(%(*@( 2B &*A 1&8% 2B
*(8=632%) 8) 2% 52%( 8*@( 76( %8=67 &*)>(% 8)
1%()(*7('0 B2% )25( )62%7 525(*7 &44 ())(*78&4
?<()782*) &%( (G6&<)7('
0 =%&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5
*234( *<53(%) 72=(76(% >876 76(8% 5&=*87<'()
%2<*' 76( )24<782*) >876 <)(B<4 @2*)8'(%&782*) &*'
)25( 12))834A *27 3&' %(B4(@782*)
Let us tell you what that diligent Man Friday did.
You must know that living alone for years he was used to
speak loudly what he was thinking about. So he just
started thinking, that is, speaking load: just imagine
those numbers be
a, b, c, d and e.
By that Friday already baptized them.
Afterwards he mentioned that they all are
participating in this just in the same way – independently
from how large they are or might be.
Democracy online in general and by us already in
action!
We could speak also about some full symmetry.
Further on the following remark was to be announced
and even written down:
Each of them, say a, is involved 6 times or is acting
in 6 sums:
a + b + c,
a + b + d,
a + b + e,
a + c + d,
a + c + e,
a+d +e
just as all others b, c d and e of them are.
Then he went ordering them by magnitude
a<b<c<d <e
Remembering that each of them is the six time
participator and finding the sum of all those possible 3.
sums we would get 6 times as big sum as all of them
together are, or
6( a + b + c + d + e),
and this 6 times as big sum of sums would and must be
6( a + b + c + d + e ) =
= 10 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 17 + 18 + 21 + 22 + 24 = 174
or
a + b + c + d + e = 29
Afterwards the diligent Man went on and along for a
while humming and once and again repeating that only
refrain:
“All of a, b, c, d and e are in fact different, are
different, are different because otherwise I would enjoy
(at least) some 3 equal sums among these 10 provided
and not just only 2 as it happened in my case”!
Further there were some essential but already
exceptionally technical details. Clearly the smallest from
all these 3 sums or
10
will, of course, represent the sum
a+b+c
of three smallest integers a, b, c.
Similarly the biggest sum or
24
will, of course, represent the sum
c+d+e
of those three biggest numbers c, d, e.
Then the sum of these both two extreme sums or
10 + 24 = 34
is, on the other hand, the sum
a + b + 2c + d + e
and keeping in mind that
a + b + c + d + e = 29
we’ll state that the middle number c is exactly 5.
So if 5 stand exactly in the middle of those 5 – so let
him stand! Then we are waiting for some kind of
breaking idea and that breaking idea appears in so
simple form of an average looking statement:
The second smallest of all these 3 sums is always the
sum
a + b + d,
which in our case makes
14
and respectively the second largest of all these possible
3 sums is always
b+d+e
or
22
in our case.
But
a + b+ c = 10
together with
c=5
implies that
a + b is also 5.
Together with the fact
a+ b + d being 14
this means
d = 9.
Remembering again that the biggest of 3 sums is 24
we might extract the sure fact that
e = 10.
Now the second biggest 3 sum or
b + d + e being 22
together with
d + e = 19
(because c + d + e = 24 with c being 5) implies that
b = 3.
Together with
a+b=5
and remembering that b is 3 as it was just being stated
implies
a = 2.
Now Friday has found all numbers
2, 3, 5, 9 and 10.
He completed that process by writing thoroughly
down all these possible 3 sums again:
2+3+5, 2+3+9, 2+3+10, 2+5+9, 2+5+10,
3+5+9, 3+5+10, 2+9+10, 3+9+10, 5+9+10.
6( &*)>(%
&* %8'&A B2<*' 762)( 721 )(@%(7 &*'
@2514(7(4A 68''(* 8*7(=(%) 3(8*= 0 0 0 $ &*' "
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5 "

)7&348)68*= 76( 58*85&4 )?<&%( 76&7 6()68%( &7H)
58=67 )6&%( 8* 76( )(7 2B B8%)7 (+(* 12))878+( 8*7(=(%)
You might have already noticed – surely you did – if
product of all numbers in the given set is already the
square of integer then it is also possible that the Cat is
vanishing with nothing or, scientifically speaking, his
share might be also empty.
In our case writing all these 8 numbers in their prime
form and multiplying them we would get
2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 8 ⋅ 10 ⋅ 12 ⋅ 14 ⋅ 16 =
$
2 ⋅ (2 ⋅ 2) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 3) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 5) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 3) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 7) ⋅ (2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2) =
= 215 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7
Trying to omit some numbers in the initial collection
X in order that the product of all remaining numbers
would be the square we clearly understand that then we
ought to say farewell to 5 and 7 – in other words in the
initial collection we are forced to omit 10 and 14.
Omitting them we will also lower by two 2’s the degree
of 2 in the product of off all numbers in X . But this
means that the degree of 2 in the whole product of
remaining numbers remains odd. That could be changed
to even by taking away, for instance, the first number 2
from the initial collection.
This clearly indicates and makes us surely to believe
that any possible (square) Cheshire Cat’s share Y must
contain at least three numbers and also demonstrate that
three are possible to achieve.
In such minimal case that share Y might, for
instance, consist from
2, 10 and 14.
That’s not the only possibility because instead of
taking 2 to that minimal share Y we could take, for
instance, 8.
So then
8, 10 and 14
would form another minimal (square) Cheshire Cat’s
share Y.
6( &*)>(%
6( 58*85&4 6()68%( &7,) )6&%( @2*7&8*)
*<53(%)
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5
%2<*' &*' 8*)7(&' 2B )24<782* E )25( >2%') 2B
%(12%7
&%( &%( 1%258)(' 2*( 8*7(=(% 1&8% 2B )<87&34(
8*7(=(%) B2% (?<&782*
3 xy − x − 2 y = 8,
24B 76(* 1%258)(' &*276(% &*' 2G &B7(%>&%')
(+(* 76( 768%' 1&8%0 &*' &B7(% 76&7 76(A &44 )7&%7('
&@78*= &) <*87(' 7(&50 1%258)8*= &*' 3%8*=8*= 72 <)
&44 8*7(=(% 1&8%)0 >68@6 &%( =22' B2% 76&7 (?<&782*
Spoke the hare:
Let us expel from that equation absolutely all
summands where x can be seen – independently alone or
as a multiple – or let’s simply forget about x – as if it
never existed.
It’s high time for that, agreed wolf, – but what’s
then?
After it was done they all examined the rest of that
remained or
–2y = 8
bringing immediately
y = –4.
So dear Hare, what a pair you’ve got? asked Fox
Mathox.
I’ve got 4, – boldly added Dare.
But 4 is not a pair, it is, as you may possibly
understand, the single number.
And both of them – hare and wolf – started to stare
for the first moment without the slightest understanding,
what a pair they’ve got totally forgetting x in that original
equation.
"
Their contemplation could probably last for hours but
that silence was suddenly interrupted by the singing
voice of fox Mathox:
. You will understand some days later that
completely forgetting x means that you are taking that
x = 0.
. And why this is so?
. You might imagine on your own or simply check
that a pair
(0; –4)
is indeed suitable for our equation.
They carefully checked it, and the pair was indeed a
suitable pair, and so their admiration for the fox was
rising up to the skies.
Now the hare Dare told:
So now that pair (0; –4) being the first pair is my
solution.
And this accepted by all of them.
Needless to say that afterwards wolf Rolf did the
same with the only difference that now he was
completely ignoring y. This leaded our company to that
what remained when y was completely erased from the
initial equation or
–x ═ 8
giving not only that
x ═ –8
but remembering the fox’s observation that completely
erasing y means simply to set out that y is 0 or that the
pair
(–8; 0)
is another solution. It was again accepted by all of them
as the solution for the wolf.
Now both of them – hare with wolf – wondered
whether the fox will again be able to invent something
new in the area how to find something of importance and
demonstrate them how to find some solution doing
practically nothing. And their hopes were not in vain
because the fox declared:
. It is also not bad, erasing x, to let other terms to
exist just as they were, and look again what will happen
then!
Now the wolf proved itself to be cool because he
asked:
. And what’ll remain when we, speaking in your
terms, will erase x in expression
–x
and only x, letting all other terms exist further just as they
were?
– What will remain then is for me as clear as the day,
– laughed the fox.
– And what will remain then, . hare was also still out
of clear understanding what‘s going on.
– Think bright, . patiently repeated the fox, – apply
additional capacities, for instance, you may imagine that
instead of
–x
you have to deal with
(.1) x.
Then it will be no difficulties erasing only x but not
the terms, which are multiples together with it.
It remains then
3y −1 − 2 y = 8
or
y = 9.
. And what’s now with x? Does it mean again that x
is understood to be 0? – asked wolf.
. Of course, not 0, because our proceedings now are
quite different as they were just before, not at all 0, not at
all 0…
– Not 0, but exactly1, – added hare Dare.
Exactly, . confirmed fox.
So they got already the third solution at a time, or
(1; 9)
and later also Ralf found also the fourth pair erasing only
y and never what’s standing together as multiples with y:
3x − x − 2 = 8 ,
2 x = 10
giving
x=5
or the pair
(5; 1).
In advisory board, hearing all that philosophy of
these bright animals, we were already eagerly waiting
also for some general methods understanding that all
these guessing methods, precocious as they were, do not
guarantee all solutions. We waited for these general
methods being also ready to help them if necessary. But
there was no great need for that because fox Mathox
appeared technologically, as expected, rather skilled, and
under her guidance all these matters were going on more
or less in the manner, as it will be told below. We omit
some smallest details and we’ll tell you only the main
things which were taking place:
3 xy − x = 2 y + 8 ,
x(3 y − 1) = 2 y + 8 ,
2y + 8
x= .
3y −1
Now the breaking consideration: assuming x and y
are integers then
3x
is also an integer. But then
2 y + 8 6 y + 24 2(3 y − 1) + 26 26
3x = 3 ⋅ = = = 2+ .
3y − 1 3y −1 3y −1 3y −1
Now 3x is an integer, so is also
26
3y −1
as well.
26
But is an integer exactly when 3 y − 1 is one
3y −1
of the divisors of 26, these divisors being
{−26, − 13, − 2, − 1, 1, 2, 13, 26} .
Then 3y is one from numbers
{−25,− 12, − 1, 0, 2, 3, 14, 27} ,
and y is an integer only in 4 cases or when
y = −4 , y = 0 , y = 1 and y = 9 ,
and then
x = 0 , x = −8 , x = 5 and x = 1 .
3)(%+&782* As we see we’ve guessed all these
solutions before. But the general solving of equations is
in general absolutely necessary, because even the most
excellent guessing might lose some partial or even more
general cases. Of course, solving quadratic equation
when it is for sure known and granted that it has no more
that 2 solutions, after indicating two numbers, which are
indeed solutions, we may already stop solving. Or in
other similar cases, if someone guarantees that the
equation has not more than 55 solutions and we‘ve found
them already, then, of course, we can also stop solving.
In other cases when we do not know exactly how many
solutions are there, then the “general solving” is
absolutely necessary – otherwise we might lose
something, so making our solution incomplete.
Second possible method of solution might be the
following, and it is clearly related to the first method.
Multiplying that equation
3 xy − x − 2 y = 8
by 3 we can overwrite it as
9 xy − 3 x − 6 y − 24 = 0
or
(3 x − 2)(3 y − 1) = 26 .
Now
26 = ( −26)( −1) = ( −13)( −2) = ( −2)( −13) = (−1)( −26) =
= 1⋅ 26 = 2 ⋅13 = 13 ⋅ 2 = 26 ⋅1
so we’ll get 8 similar systems
3x − 2 = some divisor of 26 ,

3 y − 1 = complementary divisor of 26.
From those 8 systems of equations 4 systems lead to
integer solutions, and so we get again these 4 well known
solutions: (–8; 0), (0; –4), (1; 9) and (5; 1).
6( &*)>(%I E : !0 : E !0 ": $! &*' : "!
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5
5&J8*= B&@7 &32<7 @<778*= 2B )25( %&%( C8*' 2B
8)2)@(4() 7%&1(J8<5 8*72 7>2 8)2)@(4() 7%8&*=4() 3A
'%&>8*= 76( '8&=2*&4
2*)8'(%&782*) 4(&'8*= 72 3(77(% <*'(%)7&*'8*= 76&7
76(* >( 58=67 '(7(@7 62> 38= 76()( &*=4() 2B 76&7
7%&1(J8<5 >(%( 3(B2%( @<778*=
We might remind to all whom it may concern that the
trapezium is a quadrilateral having exactly one pair of
mutually parallel sides.
Also in an isosceles trapezoid, the angles at the same
base are equal, and so are the lateral sides.
To solve the given problem it is absolutely enough to
know the following facts.
" Intersecting two parallel lines by the third line the
alternate angles are equal and, conversely, if these
alternate angles are equal then the lines are parallel.
The two angles adjacent to the third side (base) of
an isosceles triangle are equal and, conversely, if these
adjacent angles are equal then that triangle is an isosceles
triangle.
The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180°.
Now looking to the picture below and seeing these
two isosceles triangles, which we’ve got providing the
diagonal BD, we’ll try to make some practically obvious
and not very complicated conclusions.
The fact that
BC = CD
implies, as mentioned,
∠ CBD = ∠ CDB
and taking into account that
BD = AD
we get that
∠ DBA = ∠ DAB .
B C
A D
If ∠ CDB = α we get also
∠ CBD = ∠ BDA = α
(alternate angles).
Then in the triangle BDA for two equal angles at
the base AB remain 180 − α degrees, or for one angle
α
DBA exactly 90 − degrees.
2
In the isosceles trapezium the sum of two opposite
angles is 180° so that
∠ CBA + ∠ CDA = 180 ,
leading to
α
∠ CBA = α + 90 − ,
2
∠ CDA = ∠ CDB + ∠ ADB = α + α = 2α ,
and
α
α + 90 − + 2α = 180 ,
2
giving
5
α = 90
2
and finally
α = 36 .
That means that the angles of the trapezium are
2 ⋅ 36 = 72 and 180 − 72 = 108 .
Final remark. One may notice that exactly such
trapezium as we’ve just discussed might appear and
appears when we are cutting off one angle of regular
pentagon by the line passing through the two
neighbouring vertices. In any regular pentagon, just as in
every pentagon, which is “made” of 3 triangles, the sum
of all 5 internal angles is 3 ⋅ 180 = 540 , and for one
angle in the regular pentagon we have
then 540 : 5 = 108 .
6( &*)>(%
6( &*=4() 2B 2<% 8)2)@(4() 7%&1(J8<5 &%( ° &*'
" °
255(*7 2B 76( ('872%) Of course, in a full
solution, it must be also proved that the equal sides of
isosceles triangles &%( (G&@74A 762)( which are
considered as such in the given solution.
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5

%2<*' 76( )24<782* &*' &85) 2B 48@( @2*@(%*8*=
76( 5A)78@&44A <*8B8(' 1&8%) &*' >6&7,) 6&11(*('
We remind that Alice was eager to find by her own
two different positive integers n and m such that
n + S ( n) = m + S ( m ) .
$
Such pairs were referred to be mystically unified.
It ought to be reported that Alice in 5 minutes found
out one such a pair of integers
92 and 101.
Indeed
92 + (9 + 2) = 101 + (1 + 0 + 1) = 103,
as required.
Honestly speaking so far we have no reports about
other successes and achievements of Alice. For instance,
her second step was to detect three and afterwards even
more such integers giving the same result when summed
up with its digits.
6( 1&%78&4! &*)>(%
*7(=(%) $ &*' " " @2*)787<7( & 1&8% 2B 5A)78@&44A
<*8B8(' 8*7(=(%)
%&'() &*' (+(*
"
Billy Boy together with us is aware that an integer
number is called palindrome if it remains the same
independently how we are reading it: from the right to
the left or conversely – from the left to the right (e.g.
7227 is a palindrome number).
(☺) Today Billy Boy wishes to find a palindrome
number ending by 27, divisible by 27, and his strong
wish also is that the sum of the digits of it is again equal
to 27;
(Y) Tomorrow his plans will already include
determination of at least 3 such numbers;
(X) Finally and naturally on Saturday we will find the
smallest such number.
What a number would appear as the smallest one
among all of such numbers?
#
In each entry of the 4×4 square a “+“ sign is written.
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
An Argentinean gaucho named Bruno (with all of us
in the status of his honorable advisers) is intended to
implement the most challenging project ever mentioned.
In one move it is permitted to changes all signs in any
2×2 sub.square into the opposite ones. From that initial
square with all 16 + signs in all entries making several
such moves as it was just described he dares to achieve
such a sign configuration in which plus and minus signs
are arranged in the chessboard manner. Is he a little bit
crazy with that entertainment?
+ − + −
− + − +
+ − + −
− + − +
"
- "0 0 0
0
In the period of Christmas the honorable Indiana
Jones once in the dream eagerly wanted to solve such an
intellectual puzzle:
Is it possible to detect in the plane 4 such points so
that all 6 possible distances between those points were
1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 5 cm and 6 cm?
Sweetest Molly Melone in Dublin, the fair city,

found once the log of the length of 100 m, which has
been cut up into 30 pieces each of those being either 3 or
4 meters long.
Now she is piloting the recycler project, which seeks
to arrange that all these pieces would be cut up to the
pieces of 1 meter long each.
Can you help her ever establish how many cuttings
will be necessary for that?
- 0
On the blackboard the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

and 16 are written. Serious.minded again, Tom and Jerry
in turn, one after another, are crossing out four numbers
each. Tom starts first, so Jerry is the second. The
historians stated that sum of all 4 numbers crossed out by
Tom appeared to be strictly 3 times as big as the sum of
numbers, which were crossed out by Jerry.
The crucial question, which still remained open and
permanently discussed, is: whether or not it is possible to
establish what number finally remained on the
blackboard?
%&'() &*' (+(*
" , #
Granny.25 is the great fan of such numbers which
could be written only and exceptionally by 2’s and 5’s
(not necessarily both). It must only be strongly
mentioned and repeated that in whole Granny’s family
the only one thing is forbidden – in no number two 2’s
can ever be neighbours (no number can contain two
consecutive 2’s).
Numbers as mentioned are known as a two five two
numbers in their environment.
(♣) In grade 2 Granny made a list of all 5.digital two
five two numbers. How many numbers were on his list?
(♠) In grade 5 Granny made another list of all 10.
digital two five two numbers. How many numbers were
now on his list?
K
The recent intellectual deeds of the famous broker Ali
Baba included his famous split in the triangle 40. Here is
that problem.
On the median BM of the triangle ABC such a point
S is chosen that BS = 3SM. A line passing through the
points A and S intersects the side BC at a point N.
Find the area of the quadrangle CMSN if the area of
the initial triangle ABC is 40.
Dulcinea is very critical as to the dreams of Don
Quixote to meet one day or another on the country side
road such a long long number, which ends by 2003, is
divisible by 2003 and has the sum of all digits also 2003.
Johnny the Optimist wrote 11 fractions using all

natural numbers from 1 to 22 exactly once – either as
numerator or as denominator.
What is the largest number of these fractions, which
are integer numbers?
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5 "

844A 2A &*' 68) 1&48*'%25()0 '8+8)834( 3A I
B8%)7 2*( (G&514(0 76(* )25( 76%(( 2B 76&7 C8*' &*'
B8*&44A >( >844 B8*'0 2B @2<%)(0 76( )5&44()7 2*( &52*=
&44 76()( 1&48*'%25() '8+8)834( 3A
" Ad (A) or how to find at least one of such
numbers.
Start from the funny suspicion that already the
palindrome mentioned in the condition might probably
do.
That one mentioned in the condition, or
7227
clearly wouldn’t and the reason is more than prosaic –
the sum of it digits is too small; it’s obviously only
7+2+2+7
or only 18 – too small.
This wouldn’t be the only reason – another reason is
that the number 7227 is also not divisible by 27: in order
to believe and state it for sure it is enough to divide it
firstly not by 27 but by 9 only and then to examine
whether the result will still be divisible by 3.
It is indeed not so because pretending to make long
division we get
7227 9
72 803
27
27
0
and 803 isn’t divisible by 3 because then the number 800
would be divisible by 3. But 800 isn’t divisible by 3.
But this number has clear merits – these merits being
the ending by 27 and being palindrome so we will keep
on it for a while – trying, of course, to modify it.
The wish to keep the number palindromic and to
increase its sum of digits in order to make it 27 may lead
to inserting of 9 in the middle of the number or to the
number
72927.
This, can you it ever imagine, already works, because
the new enlarged number after division by 9 is still
divisible by 3. Indeed we get
72927 9
72 8103
9
9
27
27
0
And 8103 is divisible by 3.
2 76( *<53(% $ 8) 76( &*)>(% B2% !0
3(@&<)( 87 8) &* (G&514( 2B )<@6 & *<53(% E
1&48*'%25(0 '8+8)834( 3A 0 (*'8*= 3A &*' >876
)<5 2B '8=87) &4)2
<7 768) 8) &4)2 &* &*)>(% B2% 1&%7 3(@&<)( 2<%
@2*)7%<@782* '(52*)7%&7() 76&7 76( *<53(%
$
8) &4)2 76( )5&44()7 &52*= 76(5 &44
There remains the Part B asking for 3 examples. One
of them we have; it remains to find another two.
Many ideas are possible to apply in so many places –
and one of such ideas is to insert zeroes in suitable places
in order not to loose the needed properties.
Having that in mind it is easy to see that the
following two examples might be
7209027
and then
720090027
and so on.
*)>(% B2% !I ( = $ 0 $ 0
$ 0L
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5
You will probably laugh in a desperate way, but in
the life rather often simple things are not realizable, but
unbelievable things very often are!
Just take a look. Till we, advisers, gathered for the
special discussions whether it is possible and discussed it
thoroughly, the Argentinean did it! We have just seen it!
It runs!
Unbelievable!
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
The very beginning is more than clear. In four moves
– dividing that 4 x 4 square into 4 usual 2 x 2 sub squares
Bruno can change all + signs into the opposite – signs:
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
Now we’ve noticed that Bruno intended and changed
all signs in the inner 2×2 square:
– – – –
– + + –
– + + –
– – – –
Now Bruno changes slightly his manners and firstly
changes the signs in the left.most 2×2 square located in
the second and third row:
– – – –
+ – + –
+ – + –
– – – –
Using the usual chess notation changes happened in
the “a2b2b3a3” square.
Now the changes are going to take place in the right.
most 2×2 square located also in the second and third row
or “c2d2d3c3” square:
– – – –
+ – – +
+ – – +
– – – –
Now the changes are going to happen firstly in the
middle 2×2 square in the third and fourth row or in
“b3c3c4b4” square and then in the 2×2 square, which is
strictly below that square, or in “b1c1c2b2” square.
We get then
– + + –
+ + + +
+ + + +
– + + –
Actually now he is again changing signs in the
“internal” 2×2 square “b2c2c3b3”:
– + + –
+ – – +
+ – – +
– + + –
It could be mentioned not without some satisfaction
that right now he is dealing with the highest top.left 2×2
square “a3b3b4a4” and so our eyes have to enjoy the
following mutation:
+ – + –
– + – +
+ – – +
– + + –
And now Bruno is busy in the lowest 2×2 square
“c1d1d2c2”, which is the most.left.
And that’s all – we are done!
+ – + –
– + – +
+ – + –
– + – +
6( &*)>(%
()0 768) 8) 12))834( &) 87 >&) )62>* &32+(
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5

28*7) 2B *'8&*& -2*() &44 42@&7(' 8* 2*( &*' 76(
)&5( 14&*( >876 &44 12))834( 5<7<&4 '8)7&*@() 3(7>((*
76(* B8448*= 2<7 76( >624( )(7 9": : : : : ;
7 )((5) 72 3( 76( 6&%' *<7 72 C*&@C
But what is difficult in bright waters sometimes is
easier in the narrow ones – or on the line it is easier than
in whole plane.
You will be given an example.
This is a line.
On that line we will mark four points: firstly A in any

place we wish! Then, moving along that line and never
changing the direction, we will mark another point B so
$
that the distance between A and B would be exactly
@5. Mowing further we will mark the point C so that
the distance between B and C would be @5 (making the
distance between A and C already @5) Moving still in
the same direction as we were moving all the time we
finally mark the last point D so that the distance between
C and D would be only " @5
All these markings are possible even if it would be
raining cats and dogs. (Then we could use them for
marking!) The last marking of the point D makes the
distance between A and D be @5 and between B and D
– @5.
A B C D
@5 @5 " @5
0 %&'() &*' 0 1%234(5

244A (42*( &*' 76( "2= >68@6 2*@( >&) & "
5(7(%) 42*= 3<7 8* 525(*7 >6(* 87 >&) 1%()(*7(' 72
76( B&52<) 244A 87 >&) &4%(&'A 3(8*= @<7 8*
18(@()0 (&@6 18(@( (876(% 2% 5(7(%) 42*= 6(
%(&4878() 2B 48B( >(%( )<@6 76&7 2B &44 76()( 18(@() "
2*(K5(7(% 42*= 18(@() 2<=67 72 3( 5&'( 244A0
)>((7()7 244A0 >&) (G1(@7(' 72 '(7(%58*( 62> 5&*A
@<7) >2<4' 3( *(@())&%A B2% 76&7 ( )7844 3(48(+( 76&7
8* (G7%(5( @&)( )25( 2B 76(5 @2<4' 3( 7&C(* &>&A
<)8*= 6(% >6((4 3&%%2>
24<782*
Frankly speaking, going to observe what might
happen here we didn’t await anything very complicated –
the problem as such is not at all as hard as we have
sometimes seen. We were prepared to explain it to Molly
either using two unknown magnitudes or, otherwise,
using non.formal arithmetical considerations applying
some elements of barter exchange in sense of:
Let us assume or imagine that long long ago all these
30 pieces were 3 meters long – each of them…, then, so
what’s then…. ?
We even made some short notices for each of these
two cases:
1 case (standard –normal solution with ♠ and ♣):
Suppose that there are
♠
pieces which are 3 meters long (so the total length of all
where 3♠) together with the
♣
4 meters long pieces (having total length 4♣).
It was told and repeated that there were 30 such
pieces in total (♠ and ♣): in our notation this clearly
indicates that
♠ + ♣ = 30
And once not very long ago all these 30 pieces were
one apiece so that it could easily overwritten as
3♠ + 4♣ =100
and we are dealing with usual system of equations
♠ + ♣ = 30
3♠ + 4♣ =100,
which admits an easily understandable way of solution
eliminating one of the heroes of that system.
If we will thrice the first equation and then subtract it
from the second equation we will get
♣ =10,
"
Which means that there are exactly ten pieces of
length 4, subsequently there are twenty 3 meters long
pieces (♠ = 20).
It remains to state that taking 3 meter piece we would
need 2 cuts in order to get uniform 1 meter long pieces as
is planned, and similarly we would need 3 cuts to get 1
meter long pieces from the 4 long stick.
For all in all we would need
20 Z 2 + 10 Z 3 = 70
cuts.
It is good and honorable but in the same time not too
special or somehow complicated.
Paraphrasing in that page it could be added:
The standard calculation in standard book.
We have prepared also an arithmetical solution with
some elements of non standard imagination.
Let us imagine for a while that our sticks, sorry,
pieces are all 3 meter long.
Putting them together we wouldn’t get 100 meters as
it originally was, but only
30 Z 3 = 90
or
100 – 90 = 10
“too little”. So there will be not only 3 meter pieces,
we’ll have also those of 4 meters.
In order to improve or change the situation let’s
organize for our sweet MOLLY Melone the barter
exchange. Using all ammunition we could say – borrow
her wheel barrow and through “streets broad and narrow”
take one 3 meters piece away and take instead of it
another one – that of 4 meters long, and let it being
transported with the same wheel barrow.
What would be the profit of all of that? Clearly: “one
vanished and one appeared”, so everything will remain
the same counting in pieces – 30 were, 30 are there. But
“in length” we will win clearly exactly 1 meter, and we
need to win 10 meters so we must exchange exactly 10
such 3 meter sticks, sorry, pieces, and then everything
would be done.
So we conclude – at this time, formally speaking,
without writing any equation but in fact doing the same
in mind, that we have 20 pieces of 3 meters lengths and
10 of 4 meters so in order to prepare from all that the
material wanted or “unified only 1 meter long pieces”
again we will need
20 Z 2 + 10 Z 3 = 70
cuts.
This entire assortment was prepared for sweet Molly
Melone under motto – simple girls – understandable
deeds.
But what we’ve seen was truly much more than our
everyday fantasy could ever imagine. Of course we
understood after some hesitation what’s going on but in
the same time we must frankly add and confess that our
respect for Molly increased considerably.
Instead of cutting Molly went ahead restoring this
100 meter log putting all pieces as if they were together
or originally – all in one line. Of course, after she
completed it we could state that we still see all these 29
“touching” places of these pieces. But we have nothing
against the imagination that this is again entire 100
meters long piece.
And now Molly told to all passengers present on that
Dublin street that now she needs 99 cuts in order to have
100 pieces, all of them being 1 meter long, from that
original log.
She told she understands that 29 cuts are already
made, so in fact only
99 – 29 =70
cuts will be needed.
This girl did it even without knowing how many 3
meters and 4 meter pieces were lying on the scene.
That’s that!
6( &*)>(%
@<7) >844 3( *(@())&%A &*' (*2<=6
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5

(%82<)K%(5&8*8*= &*' - '(@8'8*= &32<7
76(8% (G@878*= 1%234(50 >68@6 2*( B%25 76()( $
*<53(%) >844 %(5&8* 8B (&@6 2B 76(5 &4%(&'A
'8)58))(' )25( 2B 76()( *<53(%) &*' 76( )<5 2B
*<53(%) %(52+(' 3A 8) 76%8@( &) 38= &) 76( )<5
2B *<53(%) %(52+(' 3A - E 2% +8@( +(%)& E 87
5&C() *2 '8BB(%(*@( B2% 76( *<53(%0 >68@6 >844
%(5&8*F
*)7(&' 2B )24<782* 2% 762<=67) >( %(12%7 &32<7 )25(
8'(&) 2B 2<% &4%(&'A )C844(' B%8(*')
Each experienced adviser, like we already are, would
inform these actors if they will ask about it that the thing
which could be stated at once is that the sum of all
numbers, which were removed by both of them is clearly
and undoubtedly divisible by 4.
That’s easy to feel and even to check:
If JERRY removed “the sum”
N
then TOM removed the sum, which is
3N,
so the sum of numbers removed by both of them is
N + 3N = 4N
And what could be deduced from that obvious (but
useful, you’ll just see!) statement?
Nobody could answer that question better than Tom
and Jerry but actually now they are busy counting once
again the sum of these presented numbers
1 + 3 + 4 + 6 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 12 + 16 = 70
After that, what could be stated? The number 70 is
neither so famous nor so large that everything could be
stated at once and known for advance.
And now the simplest possible insight is deciding:
let’s write it down.
If the remaining number is 1, then the sum of
remaining numbers (or exactly these, which, according to
the parabola, were removed by TOM or by JERRY),
would be 70 – 1 = 69. So let us present all these exciting
possibilities:
If number 1 overcomes then the sum of displaced
numbers is 70 – 1 = 69;
numbers is 70 – 3 = 67;
numbers is 70 – 4 = 66;
numbers is 70 – 6 = 64;
numbers is 70 – 8 = 62;
numbers is 70 – 9 = 61;
numbers is 70 – 11 = 59;
numbers is 70 – 12 = 58;
numbers is 70 – 16 = 54;
But from all of these sums
54, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67 and 69
only 64 is divisible by 4 and all others aren’t, so exactly
the number 6 could remain and we believe that this will
undoubtedly immediately established after all these
correct historical investigations.
6( &*)>(%
M N 8) 76( *<53(%0 >68@6 >844 %(5&8* M N >844
2+(%@25( E *2 276(% *<53(%
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5 "

%&**A,) '()8%( 8) 72 48)7 &44 K'8=87&4 &*' " K'8=87&4
*<53(%) >876 2*4A ,) &*' ,) 8* 76(8% '(@85&4
(G1%())82* &*' >876 76( )7%8@7 @2*'8782* 76&7 *2 7>2
,) @&* (+(% )7&*' 3()8'(
24<782* >876 )25( %(B4(@782*)
In Advisory Board we concluded at once that with
such 5.digital numbers no considerations for Granny will
be necessary – he will simply list them all and that will
do.
And exactly so had happened. Granny understands
that the first digit of any two five two number is either 2
or 5 – both are possible.
So we have either
2xxxx
or
5xxxx.
In any two.five.two number there are no two
neighboring 2’s so there are 3 (but not 4 as it is in the
case without restrictions) possibilities taking also the
second digit into account:
25xxx, 52xxx and 55xxx.
Writing consecutively and systematically, in the third
step we get the possibilities.
252xx, 255xx, 525xx, 552xx and 555xx.
Continuing, on the last but end step we’ll get
2525x, 2552x, 2555x, 5252x, 5255x, 5525x, 5552x and
5555x.
And finally the complete two.five two list containing
all such 5.digital numbers is
25252, 25255, 25525, 25552, 25555, 52525, 52552,
52555, 55252, 55255, 55525, 55552 and 55555.
So there are exactly 13 of them.
Now concerning such a numbers containing 10 digits
it could be stated that it is still possible to write them
down “by hand”.
But it is not so interesting. And, writing down similar
numbers consisting of 5 digits, we’ve already learned a
lot.
So let us speak “theoretically” now: assume that
there are
S(10)
suitable numbers. Needless to say is that each of them is
ending either in 2 or in 5.
Similarly on the last but one step there were
S(9)
and two steps before the end there were
S(8)
suitable numbers.
Now it would be very nice to notice some
connections between these numbers, possibly of the
simplest kind and nature.
The sample of suitable 10.digital integers, the
number of which is S(10), consists of 2 natural sub.
samples.
The first is the collection of all 10.digital integers,
which end in 2, and the second is the collection of those,
which end in 5.
The number of suitable numbers ending in 5 is equal
to the number S(9) because 5 can be written at the end of
any suitable 9.digital number getting suitable 10.digital
number.
A bit more difficult is to understand that the number
of suitable 10.digital integers, which end in 2, is exactly
S(8).
Then we will get that
S(10) = S(9) + S(8).
But if we replace 10 by another number, say, 6, we
will have similarly that
S(6) = S(5) + S(4).
It is even possible to replace 10 by n,
getting in the same way
S(n) = S(n – 1) + S(n – 2), where, of course, n ≥ 3
But in the first part we’ve had that
S(5) = 13
and similarly
S(4) = 8.
Also it was established that S(3) = 5 and S(2) = 3.
Applying consequently we state that from
S(6) = S(5) + S(4)
it follows that
S(6) = 13 + 8 = 21.
Now turn by turn
S(7) = S(6) + S(5) = 21 + 13 = 34,
S(8) = S(7) + S(6) = 34 + 21 = 55,
S(9) = S(8) + S(7) = 55 + 34 = 89,
S(10) = S(9) + S(8) = 89 + 55 = 144.
6( &*)>(%
%&**A >844 =(7 " )<87&34( K'8=87&4 *<53(%) &*'
" )<87&34( " K'8=87&4 8*7(=(%)
0 %&'() &*' (+(* 0 1%234(5

24<782* >876 52%( 76&* " '%&>8*= &*' )8514(
@2*)8'(%&782* &*' %(B4(@782*)
The recent intellectual deeds of the famous broker Ali
Baba included his famous split in the triangle 40. Here is
that problem.
On the median BM of the triangle ABC such a point S
is chosen that BS = 3SM. A line passing through the
points A and S intersects the side BC at a point N.
Find the area of the quadrangle CMSN if the area of
the initial triangle ABC is 40.
Let us make the Figure 1 with the picture of initial
state.
$
8=<%( "
B
N
S
A C
M
Now let us prepare – do not forget that we are from
the Advisory Board of Ali Baba – another picture with
the larger number of parcels. For that we mark the points
P and R on former BS, which is thrice as big as SM,
dividing now it in three equal parts
BP = PR = RS.
So the median BM is now already divided into 4
equal parts – the fourth of which is former SM:
BP = PR = RS =SM.
Now we join the point N with these points M, S, R
and P getting many parcels, and all of them are indicated
in the Figure 2.
8=<%(
B
P
R
N
S
A C
M
Now we are going to mark them using as few
different letters as possible – or we intend to mark the
triangle parcels of equal area with the same letters and
even with particular numbers . if only we could succeed
in understanding. Two main phrases will now be
pronounced and permanently repeated.
The first of them will be that the 2 triangles are of
equal area if we can show the their bases are of equal
length (and belong to the same common line) and their
third vertex is the same point (then they will share a
common altitude from that point!)
Now in Figure 2 the triangle ABM is naturally
divided into 4 triangles AMS, ASR, ARP and APB. All 4
of these triangles have the base of the same length laying
on the median BM:
BP = PR = RS =SM
and share the same third vertex at A, so they have the
same altitude from that point and so they all will have the
same area, which we will denote by ♣.
Reasoning identically we will have on another side of
BM the triangle NMB divided into 4 triangles
NMS, NSR, NRP and NPB
with the same equal bases
BP = PR = RS = SM
The common vertex of them all is at N, and their
equal areas will be denoted by ♠ each.
Let us indicate it in Figure 3.
8=<%(
♠
♣
♠
♣
♠
♣
♠
♣
"
Now we can state that “almost all” area of triangle
ABC is covered by these ♣ and ♠. The only uncovered
area is that of triangle CMN. We could ask now the
following question.
Are there in the triangle ABC some smaller (sub).
triangles with the same area as CMN?
After some consideration we see that the answer is
“yes” – such is the triangle AMN. This is indeed so
because BM being median from B means that
AM = MC
on the side AC and the third common vertex naturally in
N.
And what is the area of that AMN? From all our
markings, from all these ♠ and ♣ it is clear that the area
of AMN is
♠ + ♣.
So now the area of that only non.marked triangle
MCN is also
♠ + ♣.
In Figure 4 will indicate now the complete partition
of our triangle using the only measures ♠ and ♣.
8=<%(
♠
♣
♠
♣
♠
♣
♠ ♣+♠
♣
Now it is necessary only to complete the solution.
The useful link is to state that on each side of median
BM there is as much of area of initial triangle ABC as on
the other. It was mentioned that that area of ABC is 40.
So there is area 20 on each side; so 20 is the area of the
triangle ABM, and 20 is also the area of the triangle
CBM. But on one side there are 4 small triangles each of
which is marked with the same ♣. In other words, the
area of the triangle ABM is 4♣ or 20.
But
4♣ = 20
means
♣ = 5.
On the other side of median BM there 5 triangles
with areas
♠, ♠, ♠, ♠, ♠ + ♣ .
That makes the total area being
5♠ + ♣
or altogether also 20:
5♠ + ♣ = 20
But
♣ = 5
leaves
5♠ = 20 – 5 = 15
giving finally
♠ = 3.
Now in the triangle ABC we can compute almost
everything we would like to. We need the area of the
CMSN. This is exactly
♠ + (♠ + ♣)
or
3 + (3 + 5)
giving 11 as an answer.
6( &*)>(%
6( %(?<8%(' &%(& 2B 8) ""
0 %&'() &*' 0 1%234(5
24<782* &*' %(4&7(' @2*)8'(%&782*)
6( &'A 8) 2B @2<%)( ())(*78&44A %8=67 E 6&+( A2<
(+(% 5(7 & 4&%=( *<53(% 2* 76( @2<*7%A %2&'D
7844 8B >( @2<4' 85&=8*( 76&7 >( &%( &34( 8* 2<%
52*872% 72 (*O2A 76( 2+(%+8(> 2B (+(%A @2<*7%A %2&'
76&7 (+(% (G8)7(' 76(* 2<% 621() >2<4' 3(
@2*)8'(%&34A 52%( %(&48)78@
2 &7 &*A %&7( 2<% &'+8)2%A 32&%' )7&%7('
=(*(%&78*= 8'(&) &*' >( &%( 6&11A 72 &**2<*@( 76&7
&@@2%'8*= 72 2<% C*2>4('=( 76( =%&*')2* 2B %
6(%42@C 245() '(&48*= <*'(% @2*)18%&@A *&5(
*(76 276%(( 2+(%722C 76( %()12*)838487A B2% 76&7
>624( &BB&8% ( 2*4A &'' 76&7 *(76 >8)6() 2*( '&A
2% &*276(% 72 (*7(% 76( B&52<) 8* 2%'(% 72 6&+(
& 4(@7<%( @2<%)( 3A 76( B&52<) 1%2B())2% -&A*(
He started in an astonishingly simple way – he took
the block
2003
and started to build be bigger numbers – firstly
20032003….
then
200320032003….
So far everything is understandable – putting
together these “2003.blocks” Oneth will never lose the
divisibility by 2003 and will increase the digit sum – with
each block by 5 units making it correspondingly
5, 10, 15, 20,... .
But the dream.number 2003 will never appear as a
sum here so on one day or another Don Quichote with
Oneth would be forced to invent something else.
Indeed after putting of
400
such 2003.blocks together the number
200320032003…2003
would appear on some country road and that number
would count
400 Z 4 = 1600
digits and its sum of digits will be already near to what is
needed:
400 Z 5 = 2000
but with the next similar step this sum of digits will jump
over that desired 2003 and further also will be never meet
it again.
But actually at that place Oneth also stopped. His
took out the first 2003.block from that huge number and
started to consider its multiples
2003, 4006, 6009, 8012, 10015, 12018, 14021, 16024,
18027, 20030
writing their digit sums underneath:
5, 10, 15, 11, 7, 12, 8, 13, 18, 5….
Then he took the new block 14021 (with the sum of
digits 8, mentioned we in the monitor of the advisory
board), and put it back instead of the former block 2003.
Aha, so now he’ll get the modified number
14021 2003 2003….. 2003
consisting of again 400 such almost.all.2003.blocks with
the sum of digits 2003 instead of 2000 as it was. And he
won’t lose the divisibility by 2003 because he was
regarding the multiples of 2003.
*)>(% &) 87 >&) >%877(* 3A 76( 6&*' 2B 2*
/<8G27(I
6(%( &%( 14(*7A )<@6 & *<53(% 2* 76( >2%4' E 2*
5A 2>* >&A 5(7 2*@( 76( *<53(%
" " L
399 blocks “2003”
0 %&'() &*' 0 1%234(5

6( *&7<%&4 >8)6 2B -26* 76( 17858)7 8) 72 =(7 &)
5&*A &) 12))834( 8*7(=(% *<53(%) B%25 "" B%&@782*)
8* >68@6 (&@6 *<53(% B%25 " 72 8) <)(' (876(% &)
*<5(%&72% 2% &) '(*258*&72%
24<782* &*' %(4&7(' '(7&84)
The dual problem for Jack the pessimist would be to
get as few from 11 fractions to be integers – again
employing all numbers 1 to 22 exactly once – would be
easy. That easy answer would be – the case with no
integer numbers from all of those 11 fractions is possible.
It would be enough then to refer to such a sample of
11 fractions:
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
, , , , , , , , , ,
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
with clearly none of them being an integer number.
7 >2<4' 3( 12))834( &*' *&7<%&4 72 85&=8*( 76&7
76( @2%%()12*'8*= 12))834( M'<&4N &47(%*&78+( B2%
-26* 76( 17858)7 >2<4' 3( 72 621( 76&7 87 8) 12))834(
72 5&C( &44 "" 2B 76()( B%&@782*) 72 3( 8*7(=(%)
Unfortunately that is not possible.
Why?
Because among all these numbers there are some big
prime numbers – 13, 17 and 19.
What do they do?
Their crime is that from the fractions in which they
are participating at least one is always not an integer
number.
What are the reasons for that?
The reasons for that might be explained as follows.
If any of these 3 numbers 13, 17, 19 is a denominator
then such fraction can’t be an integer.
If some 2 of these 3 numbers 13, 17, 19 are
numerators then at least one of corresponding fractions
is not an integer.
Really, if some 2 of these 3 numbers 13, 17 and 19
are numerators then the only possibility to get an integer
from such a fraction is to have 1 in denominator – so that
at least one of remaining fractions wouldn’t be an
integer.
It means that not all fractions can be integers
Consequently at most 10 of them can be integers.
After a while John the Optimist presented 11
fractions, and 10 among them were indeed integers – all
with exception of the last fraction:
13 10 21 20 15 12 14 16 18 22 19
, , , , , , , , , , .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 17
6( &*)>(%
-26* 76( 17858)7 @&**27 5&C( &44 2B 76()( ""
B%&@782*) 72 3( 8*7(=(%) ( @&* 5&C( &44 2B 76(5 3<7
2*( 8*7(=(% *<53(%)I
" " " " " " " " "$
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" $ "" "
(only that last fraction is not an integer!).

Once Upon A Time I Saw A Puzzle, Parts I & 2 (1999-2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Once Upon A Time I Saw A Puzzle, Parts I & 2 (1999-2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The LAIMA series

ONCE UPON A TIME I

R. Kašuba. Once upon a time I saw a puzzle. Part I.

The book demonstrates psychological aspects of problem

The final version was prepared by Ms. Dace Bonka.

ISBN 978 9984 45 045 2

1. FINDINGS AND ENCODINGS OF JOHNNY

2. SPLIT THAT RECTANGLE IN TWO AND

4. (MEGA)PLATE OF CHOCOLATE AND HOW

A.D. 1999, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 2.

will appear in front of her mind’s eyes.

So the task is to get this from the initial rectangle.

If we are planning to get the square with one cut

Dealing symmetrically in the opposite corner with

If we will make the similar marking for the second

And marking the corresponding one for Y’s we

But then the region with X has common boundary

But from two 3×2 parts we may arrange the

Finally we present the square we get :

A.D. 1999, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 3.

If also now you have some doubt about the way in

Grades 5, 6 and even 7

1. DRAGONS EMPTYING THE LAKE OF QUEEN

2. KINGS ARTHUR’S ATTENTION FOR

3. EXERCISE FOR SIR LANCELOT

4. PINOCCHIO AND MELVIN EXCHANGING

A.D. 2000, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 2.

(☺) It is also possible to get even 6 parts when all

It may say just as Scientific Council did that it is

A.D. 2000, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 3.

A.D. 2000, Grades 5, 6 and even 7, problem 4.

1. WINNIE AND 2 KILOS IN 3 WEIGHTINGS

2. THE SINGLE MISTAKE OF MACAVITY THE

3. ROBINSON CRUSOE AND END POINTS OF 6

4. TOM AND JERRY WITH THEIR ATTEMPTS

1. TWO AIMS OF FAMOUS SANCHEZ PONCHO

2. ALICE AFTER WONDERLAND AND WHAT’S

3. BILLY BOY AND HIS CONVEX HIMALAYA

4. BILLY BOY AND ANOTHER ROCK

Seeing that precious material Billy Boy in 2 days

SOLUTIONS AND AROUND THEM

A.D. 2001, Grades 5 and even 6, problem 2.

A.D. 2001, Grades 5 and even 6, problem 3.

(12 end points) (11 end points) (10 end points)

(6 end points) (5 end points) (4 end points)

A.D. 2001, Grades 5 and even 6, problem 4.

A.D. 2001, Grades 7 and even 8, problem 1.

A.D. 2001, Grades 7 and even 8, problem 2.

A.D. 2001, Grades 7 and even 8, problem 3.

A.D. 2001, Grades 7 and even 8, problem 4.

Let us repeat that “ " ” is made of 4

rectangle we can split into two (rotated) “ "

And no “ " ” (possibly rotated) in the

! " ) & ) &

The book demonstrates psychological aspects of problem

The final version was prepared by Ms. Dace Bonka.

The book is printed with the support of the company RIX

Reă. apl. No. 50003107501

Iespiests SIA „Mācību grāmata”, RaiĦa bulv. 19, Rīgā, LV.1586,

Once upon a time there happened a day when the

Let us agree that if we are excluding some elements

It appeared that Tom, while being furious – and this

Once upon a time there lived in that world only 5 but

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5 "

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5

%&'() &' (+(

%&'() &' (+(

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5 "

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5 "

0 %&'() &' (+( 0 1%234(5