I do the “Stickeler” in the local paper most days. Great puzzles, usually. But yesterday’s doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not sure I completely understand the question, and the answer provided doesn’t seem to relate at all.
You can check it out here .
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
thwartme
Probably a misprint. It’s easy to solve by overlaying the squares such that one of the small squares is split into 4 panes.
The puzzle is designed to thwart you.
I don’t understand at all, especially after looking at the answer.
I asked Terry Stickels himself, and his respose is:
*The question and answer are correct. Just take those squares in the
questiona (sic) and arrange them in such a way as to come up with 6 squares of any
size. Of course, the large square made up of the outside lines, counts as a
square, too.
Best,
Terry Stickels*
So it’s not a misprint.
I do have some ideas about overlaying the squares, and I’m pretty sure I could come up with a solution, but that answer is really confusing me.
thwartme
I think I figured it out. I made a 4x4" square and two 3x3" squares in Microsoft Word and moved them around a bit until I got it, but I have no idea how to post the answer here. (BTW, I paid not attention to the “answer” provided at all).
I’ll try to describe it:
The big square is the “base” square. One of the smaller squares is lined up so its top side is the same “height” as the big square, but it is offset to the left. The other smaller square shares the righthand side of the larger square, but it offset to the bottom. If you line it up right, this arrangement creates 3 new square inside the big square, plus you have the three original squares, so that makes 6.
I doubt that makes any sense, but I did my best 
I can count 6 squares in THIS picture.
It also works if you just nestle the smaller squares into opposite corners of the big one
Any arrangement where the centers of the two small squares are along the same diagonal as the large square will work, as long as neither small square is entirely inside the large square.
Yep, and that’s much simpler than what I described above. :smack:
Without looking further into the thread:
Place the two smaller squares inside the larger one so they meet it at opposite corners.
I don’t get though where it says Answer at the bottom? Is that for the same puzzle?
You see, ANY of those would have been perfectly acceptable answers. Thanks very much for all of them. Thanks especially to brewha for the great image, makes things very clear.
So I guess the only puzzle left is… what do those three rectangles mean?
thwartme
Hmm, I see 8. Or 5 if the original squares don’t count. Either way, not 6.
Is that maybe the answer for yesterday’s puzzle?
I have a jpg I’ll post as soon as Photobucket cooperates…
No, it’s not. The answer for the Stickeler is always the same day. And, as you can see from his response (above), the author claims the answer is correct as it stands.
I just can’t figure out how three rectangles equals six squares.
thwartme
Okay, I have trouble believing that’s not a misprint. Is Stickelers syndicated, and did you send him the actual image you posted here? What I’m getting at is that it may have been a mistake made by the local paper…I can’t for the life of me see how those rectangles solve the problem.
I have sent him the image, and asked him if he’d mind explaining a little further. No response as yet.
Anybody else get the Stickeler in their local paper? I got mine from the Toronto Star. Can anyone see if there’s a different version printed elsewhere?
thwartme
Yeah, there’s eight in that solution. **Mangetout ** has it right – nestle the smaller squares directly into opposite corners of the larger square. The result is six, and only six squares. As **Delores ** said, photobucket is down right now, otherwise I would post an image showing what I mean.
And misprint it is!
*That is not the answer we submitted to your paper. Apparently, they did something to change the answer. We are trying to find oout (sic) what. Thanks for letting me know.
Best,
Terry Stickels*
Well I feel much better now. The idea that I just wasn’t understanding the answer was really bugging me.
thwartme
And today’s “Fighting Ignorance Award” goes to…thwartme! BRAVO!!!
