In 1907, Henry Dudeney showed that you could dissect a square into 4 pieces that can be rearranged to form an equilateral triangle.

[Edit: In 1902, in fact. “1907” seems to be a typo in the Demaine et al paper.]

In 2024, Erik D. Demaine, Tonan Kamata and Ryuhei Uehara finally proved that this cannot be done with *less than* 4 pieces!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03865

(H/T @robinhouston )

Dudeney's Dissection is Optimal

In 1907, Henry Ernest Dudeney posed a puzzle: ``cut any equilateral triangle \dots\ into as few pieces as possible that will fit together and form a perfect square'' (without overlap, via translation and rotation). Four weeks later, Dudeney demonstrated a beautiful four-piece solution, which today remains perhaps the most famous example of dissection. In this paper (over a century later), we finally solve Dudeney's puzzle, by proving that the equilateral triangle and square have no common dissection with three or fewer polygonal pieces. We reduce the problem to the analysis of discrete graph structures representing the correspondence between the edges and the vertices of the pieces forming each polygon.

arXiv.org

One way to get the 4-piece dissection is to tile the plane with squares and equilateral triangles, both with area 1.

Find vectors v, w with |v|=the side length of an equilateral triangle with area 1, |w|=2, and det|v,w|=2

v = (2 / 3^{1/4}, 0)
w = (√[4-√3], 3^{1/4})

If we use these vectors to construct a lattice with either the triangles or the squares, suitably offset, they will divide each other into exactly the same four pieces!

By the way, unless you look very carefully, you might think that the vertices of the equilateral triangles built from the pieces here all line up along perfectly vertical lines ... but they don’t! If you look up and down along the left or right edge of the image, it becomes clear that those perfectly vertical edges do not slice successive pieces in the same place.
@gregeganSF this is the worst magic eye I’ve ever done
@gregeganSF @robinhouston Huh, why have I never seen a hinged fidget toy that does this? Seems very satisfying!

@attoparsec
My 6 year old has and loves his 'infinity cube' and I remember them growing up, like this but 3d. Best link I can find whilst on a train https://www.instructables.com/Infinity-Cube-in-Fusion-360/

@gregeganSF @robinhouston

Infinity Cube in Fusion 360

Infinity Cube in Fusion 360: Infinity cubes have become a popular fidget gadget. I wanted to design one on my own using Fusion 360 to 3D print in place. There are several existing designs on Thingiverse; however, they don't provide the design files for customization. I will wal…

Instructables
@attoparsec @gregeganSF Grand Illusions sell a beautiful aluminium version. Not cheap, but excellent quality and very satisfying https://www.grand-illusions.com/products/dudeneys-dissection
Dudeney's Dissection

@gregeganSF @robinhouston

So the areas of each must be identical? 😲

@simonzerafa @robinhouston

By choice. You can make an equilateral triangle or a square of any area by adjusting the side length s, and if you want both to have area 1 you choose s=1 for the square and s=2/3^{1/4} for the triangle.

@gregeganSF I thought the list of still-unsolved problems at the end of the paper was interesting:

* Is a three-piece dissection still impossible if flipping is allowed?

* Are there only a finite number of rectangles that can be dissected into three pieces from a triangle? If so, how can they be enumerated?

* Are there any other four-piece dissections between an equilateral triangle and a square, aside from the solution proposed by Dudeney?

* Are there any pairs of regular n-gons and m-gons that can be dissected into three pieces, where n ≠ m?

* Is a three-piece dissection still impossible if we allow nonpolygonal (curved) pieces?

@gregeganSF @robinhouston The triangulature of the square. 🤣