6

This question is suggested by a prior question, which has not received a complete answer. One corner of rectangular sheet of paper $P_1$ is folded down to make a trapezoid, and then a right triangle is cut off to make another rectangle $P_2.$ The process is repeated with $P_2$ to produce a rectangle $P_3$ and so on. We assume that the ratio of the sides of $P_1$ is irrational, so none of the rectangles is a square, and the process goes on forever.

enter image description here

Let $S_n$ be the area of $P_n$ and suppose $$\lim_{n\to\infty}{S_{n+2}\over S_n}$$ exists. What are the possible values of the limit.

In the original question, the OP stated that he believed that, in order for the limit to exist, it must be the case that $P_n$ and $P_{n+2}$ are similar, for large $n,$ but that he couldn't prove it.

In a partial answer, I corrected some calculation errors, and pointed out the relation of the problem to continued fractions, but I haven't been able to prove the OP's hypothesis either, though I think it's very likely true.

Can you prove that $P_n$ and $P_{n+2}$ must eventually be similar? Alternatively, can you see how to modify the analysis so as not to use this hypothesis?

saulspatz
  • 53,131
  • When $P_n$ and $P_{n+2}$ are similar, then the ratio of the height vs width is just $\phi$. The requirement that $P_{n+1}$ be similar to $P_n$ is the very definition of $\phi$, and it turns out that changing this to $P_{n+2}$ still yields the same equation. – Paul Sinclair Mar 02 '19 at 04:02
  • @PaulSinclair First of all, the limit also exists when the ratio is $\sqrt{2},$ but you seem to be addressing the converse. It's true that the ratio of the areas approaches a limit if $P_n$ and $P_{n+2}$ are similar, but I'm asking how to prove that the ratio of the areas does not approach a limit if they're not similar. – saulspatz Mar 02 '19 at 04:10
  • 1
    I'm aware this doesn't answer the question. That is why I made it a comment. And I was only commenting about the condition that $P_{n+2}$ actually be similar to $P_n$, not on whether other ratios give a convergent sequence of area ratios. – Paul Sinclair Mar 02 '19 at 04:16
  • Should this question really have the calculus tag? – Brian Tung Mar 05 '19 at 17:58
  • @BrianTung I put the calculus tag on it because I thought if someone could solve it, it would require calculus to analyze the behavior of the convergents. I wanted to indicate that the question wasn't concerned with algebraic properties of continued fractions. Now that you bring it up, this was a bad idea, since people watching the calculus tag wouldn't be necessarily be interested in this problem. – saulspatz Mar 05 '19 at 18:04

2 Answers2

2

There is another possible limit $\color{blue}{3-2\sqrt{2}=(1+\sqrt{2})^{-2}}$. How?

Suppose rectangle $n$ has length $a$ and width $b$ with $a>2b$. Then to get to rectangle $n+2$ you shorten the $a$ dimension twice leaving a rectangle with dimensions $a-2b$ and $b$. If

$\dfrac{a-2b}{b}=\dfrac{b}{a}$

then the rectangles are similar forcing a fixed value of $S_{n+2}/S_n$. Note that the intermediate rectangle would not be similar so we would not have $S_{n+1}/S_n=\sqrt{S_{n+2}/S_n}$.

The above equation for $a$ and $b$ is solved for a positive root $a/b=1+\sqrt{2}>2$. Thereby

$\dfrac{S_{n+2}}{S_n}=\dfrac{a-2b}{a}=3-2\sqrt{2}$.

With $a/b=1+\sqrt{2}>2$ one can verify that also

$\dfrac{S_{n+3}}{S_{n+1}}=3-2\sqrt{2}$.

Oscar Lanzi
  • 39,403
  • This looks right, but I'm confused. If the original ratio is $1+\sqrt{2} : 1$ then after one fold, the ratio is $\sqrt{2} : 1$ so we should be in the case I already found. I wonder if I made a mistake there. I'll have to look into it. – saulspatz Mar 05 '19 at 18:14
  • In fact the side ratio alternate between $\sqrt{2}+1$ and $\sqrt{2}$. If you choose $a/b=\sqrt{2}+1$ as the initial value then the result is as above. If instead you select $a/b=\sqrt{2}$, then the area ratio is $(2b-a)(a-b)/(ab)$ which is again $3-2\sqrt{2}$. – Oscar Lanzi Mar 05 '19 at 18:23
  • That's right; another senior moment! I actually noticed this case when I was answering the other question, and didn't bother with it because that question asked for the possible ratios of the areas. – saulspatz Mar 05 '19 at 18:46
1

The following are just some considerations, which might be of help.

Rett_Tagliato_1

We start with a rectangle of sides $a_0 \le b_0$ and after ${\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor }$ cuts we reach to a rectangle of sides $$ \left\{ {\matrix{ {a_{\,0} \left\{ {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\} = b_{\,0} \bmod a_{\,0} } & \to & {a_{\,1} } \cr {a_{\,0} } & \to & {b_{\,1} } \cr } } \right.\;\; $$

The ratio of the sides proceeds as $$ \bbox[lightyellow] { \eqalign{ & {{a_{\,0} } \over {b_{\,0} }} = {1 \over {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}}} = {1 \over {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor + \left\{ {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\}}} = \cr & = {1 \over {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor + {{b_{\,0} \bmod a_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}}} = \cr & = {1 \over {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor + {{a_{\,1} } \over {b_{\,1} }}}} = {1 \over {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor + {1 \over \ddots }}} = \cdots \cr} }\tag {1}$$ which is in fact the continued fraction development of $a_0 / b_0$, whose terms come from the progressive steps in the Euclidean Algorithm for $gcd(a_0,b_0)$.

The sequence of the areas proceeds as follows $$ \bbox[lightyellow] { \eqalign{ & S_{\,0} = a_{\,0} \,b_{\,0} = a_{\,0} ^{\,2} \left( {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right)=A_{\,0} \cr & S_{\,1} = a_{\,0} \,\left( {b_{\,0} - a_{\,0} } \right) = a_{\,0} ^{\,2} \,\left( {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }} - 1} \right) \cr & \quad \vdots \cr & S_{\,\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor } = a_{\,0} ^{\,2} \,\left( {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }} - \left\lfloor {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\rfloor } \right) = a_{\,0} ^{\,2} \,\left\{ {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}} \right\} = a_{\,1} b_{\,1} =A_{\,1} \cr & \quad \vdots \cr & S_{\,n} = a_{\,m} ^{\,2} \left( {{{b_{\,m} } \over {a_{\,m} }} - q} \right)\quad \left| \matrix{ \;\sum\limits_{0\, \le \,k\, \le \,m - 1} {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,k} } \over {a_{\,k} }}} \right\rfloor } \le n < \sum\limits_{0\, \le \,k\, \le \,m} {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,k} } \over {a_{\,k} }}} \right\rfloor } \hfill \cr \;0 \le n - \sum\limits_{0\, \le \,k\, \le \,m - 1} {\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,k} } \over {a_{\,k} }}} \right\rfloor } = q < \left\lfloor {{{b_{\,m} } \over {a_{\,\,m} }}} \right\rfloor \hfill \cr} \right. \cr} }\tag {2}$$ where the meaning of the $A_n$ are obvious.

We can say that the $Sn$ are interpolating the $A_m$.

If we take $a_0=1,\;b_0=\varphi$ (golden ratio), we get $$ \eqalign{ & {1 \over {{{b_{\,0} } \over {a_{\,0} }}}} = {{\rm 1} \over \varphi } = {{\rm 1} \over {1 + \left( {\varphi - 1} \right)}} = {{\rm 1} \over {1 + {1 \over \varphi }}}\quad \Rightarrow \quad \left\{ \matrix{ b_{\,m} = \varphi ^{\,1 - \,m} \hfill \cr a_{\,m} = \varphi ^{\, - \,m} \hfill \cr n = m\quad q = 0 \hfill \cr S_{\,n} = a_{\,n} \,b_{\,n} = \varphi ^{\,2 - 2\,n} \hfill \cr} \right. \cr & {{S_{\,n + 2} } \over {S_{\,n} }} = \varphi ^{\, - \,4} \cr} $$

But, apart from the golden ratio above, the Euclidean algorithm is in general not smooth, and thus it is difficult to grasp the limit of the wanted ratio (to my knowledge).

In fact, if we take for example $(1,\pi)$ as the starting rectangle, it is known that the the terms of the corresponding CF do not have any regular pattern.
For our problem that means that the side ratio $\left\lfloor {{{b_{\,n} } \over {a_{\,n} }}} \right\rfloor $ ( and thus the ratio itself) is varying unpredictably. And unpredictable as well will be the limit of the area ratio.
That is understandable in the model, as that many times we reach very near to a rational rectangle, after which we are left with a very thin and long stripe, which has an anomalously low area wrt the parent sheet.

G Cab
  • 35,272
  • Thank you. This is basically what I was thinking, but I couldn't express it as well. It seems like the problem would be difficult enough with just the continued fractions, but with the interpolated terms also, I don't know where to start. – saulspatz Mar 05 '19 at 14:32
  • @saulspatz: I added a further note: "rebus sic stantibus" I doubt that the limit might be defined in general. – G Cab Mar 05 '19 at 17:09