Trevor Hancock

Math 213, 10:30

P.O.M. Level E
Problem Statement:
In Level E in the problem of the month, the classes talked about cutting a regular
hexagon cake into two equal parts. The argument was that there are infinite amount of ways that
one can cut a regular hexagon into two equal parts, only using one cut. I was given two methods
of cutting that split the cake in half. Two equal parts will remain if I cut the cake from one vertex
to the opposite vertex, and if I cut the cake from one midpoint to the opposite midpoint. I wanted
to investigate the infinite amount of ways to cut any even sided polygons. I believed that I could
cut an even sided polygon an infinite amount of ways as long as the cut went through the center
point of the shape. I also wanted to investigate why this same method does not work for odd
sided polygons.
Process:
I chose to further investigate 6 different shapes. I wanted to investigate the idea that one
cut going through the center of any polygon would cut the shape into two equal parts. If this
concept worked I wanted to know why. I attempted three different methods for each shape.
The triangle was the first shape I investigated. I stated simply by finding the center of the
triangle (see triangle #1). I found the center of the triangle by cutting the triangle in half from
vertex A to opposite midpoint. I repeated this idea from vertex B to opposite midpoint, and
vertex D to opposite midpoint. The center point of my triangle is labeled C. Once I found the

midpoint of the triangle I wanted to see if the straight cut through the midpoint would create two
equal parts (see triangle #2). I chose and equal distance from vertex A, and measured off that
same distance from the opposing midpoint. I found that this did not create two equal parts. Next,
I used a different approach for my final attempt. I made a horizontal line parallel with the line
segment BD (see triangle #3). The horizontal line did not cut the triangle into two equal parts.
Therefore, I was able to conclude that the only ways to cut a triangle into equal parts is cutting
from a vertex to the opposite midpoint.
The rectangle was the second shape I chose to investigate. I started this investigation by
finding the midpoint of the rectangle by cutting from one vertex to the opposite vertex, and from
one midpoint to the opposite midpoint (see rectangle #1). I found that this left four cuts through
the center point of the rectangle, and it also left eight right isosceles triangles inside the
rectangle. This proved the interior angle sum of 360, because each interior vertex angle was 45
degrees. Following, I measured a random spot on the line segment AE, barely left of vertex E
(see rectangle #2). I drew a diagonal line that went through the center point of the rectangle, and
was located on line segment BD. The point on line segment BD, was matching distance from
vertex B as the opposite was from E. This diagonal cut made the two remaining shapes appear to
be equal, so I decided to see if they were. I made I straight line down for my point on line
segment AE that was perpendicular with line segment BD. I reversed this same method from the
point on line segment BD. This showed me that the shape was cut perfectly in half because each
half had a matching rectangle, and a matching right triangle. This also proved that the rectangle
is once shape that can be in an infinite amount of ways. I made sure that this conclusion was
correct by attempting those same steps from two different points on the same sized rectangle (see
rectangle #3).

The third shape I investigated was a regular pentagon. I stated by locating the center point
which I found by drawing a straight line from a vertex to the opposite midpoint, I repeated this
same process from each of the five vertices (see pentagon #1). Next, I found a random point on
line segment AB that went through the center point and ended on line segment EF (see pentagon
#2). This did not cut the figure in half because I was left with a trapezoid on one half, and a
pentagon on the other. My final attempt I measured a point to the right of vertex A and to left of
the opposite midpoint going through the center of the figure. Once again there result was a
trapezoid on one side of the shape and a pentagon on the other. I was able to conclude that the
pentagon with a cut through the figure did not make two equal parts.
The regular hexagon was the fourth shape I investigated. I started by finding the center
point of the figure. I found the center by making a diagonal line from opposite vertices, and
opposite midpoints (see hexagon #1). The result of the cuts in search of the center point was 12
right triangles. Next, I measured a point on line segment AG that was opposite of a point
measure on line segment DE (see hexagon #2). From the measured point on line segment AG I
made a perpendicular line on line segment DE. I did this same in reverse for the measured point
on line segment DE. Following, I made two new lines segment AD, and GE. This proved that
both halves of the hexagon were exactly the same, and had infinite ways to be cut into two equal
parts. In order to double check my assumption I chose two different points on hexagon #3.
However, the way I proved that my method for proving equality was different in hexagon #3.
The regular heptagon was the fifth shape I tested. I started by finding the center point of
the figure by making a line from each vertex to the opposite midpoint (see heptagon #1). The
triangles that remained after finding the center point were not all equal. This could very well be
my mistake while constructing the center point of the shape. I assumed that since the triangles

were not all equal after finding the center point that this shape would not have infinite ways to
cut the figure in half. In heptagon #2 I chose two random points on opposites sides of the figure.
The first point was located on line segment BD, and the second was located on line segment HG.
This line did cut the figure into two parts, but they were not equal. In heptagon #3 I measured a
point to the right of vertex A and to the left of the opposite midpoint that went through the center
point. I constructed lines started at the center point that went out to each vertex the see what
different shapes made up the inside of the heptagon. Each half of the heptagon consisted of
different shapes. Therefore, I concluded that the heptagon could not be cut into two equal parts
with only one line.
The final shape I investigated was a concave dodecagon which is the shape of a cross. I
chose this shape because it is a regular polygon but I wanted to see if fit the trends of the other
even sided regular polygons. I started the investigation by locating the center point of the figure.
I found the center point by constructing a line from one vertex to the opposite vertex, and from
one midpoint to the opposite midpoint (see dodecagon #1). I did this for each of the vertices and
midpoints. Next, I measured a point on line segment AM and reflect the opposite on line segment
GH that went through the center point (see dodecagon #2). Following, I constructed a
perpendicular line from the measure point on line segment AM that ended on line segment GH. I
did this same idea for the point located on line segment GH. The last thing I did for dodecagon
#2 was make line segments BF, and LI. I was able to conclude that the one cut through the
dodecagon made both halves equal. I decided to try a different method to prove why the
dodecagon had infinite amount of ways to be cut into two equal parts (see dodecagon #3). I
measure a point on line segment DE, and reciprocated that point on line segment KJ. I cut the

remainder of each half into smaller shapes than in dodecagon #2, in over to prove that each half
was equal. I concluded that each have of the dodecagon was indeed equal.
Solution:
At the beginning of the investigation I wanted to be able to prove WHY the regular even
sided figures had infinite ways to be cut in half, while the regular odd sided figures did not. The
first solution I found is that because of the even numbered of sides, the figures can be made up of
almost every combination of shapes imaginable. Another solution I found is that the shapes
composed on the inside of the even sided figure are in the exact opposite position in regard the
reflection on the other half of the shape. This is because if the even sided shape is not being cut
from midpoint to midpoint, or vertex to vertex, it is being cut from one random spot on the figure
to the exact opposite of that random spot. In order for regular polygons to be cut into two equals
parts they must be cut from equal spot on the figure. The odd sided numbered figures dont have
opposite spots technically. That is why none of the odd sided figures could be cut in half from
one point on the figure to the exact opposite side on the figure. The vertex to midpoint did work
to cut the odd sided number figures into two equal parts. The vertex and opposite midpoint are
located at opposite end of the shape, but this does not make them opposites. Therefore, odd
numbered sided figure do not have an infinite amount of ways to be cut into two parts.
Learning:
I chose to investigate why a regular polygon has infinite ways or a set number of ways to
be cut into two equal parts. I believed before the investigation that even sided polygons could be
cut in half infinite ways, but I did not truly understand why. Throughout my investigation I was
able to find many different ways to provide proof the even sided polygons can be made into two

equal parts with only one cut. The mathematics that occurred throughout my investigation was
using triangle to prove my assumptions. In class we talked about the interior vertex angle sum, so
I knew that tringles had a big part of dividing any regular polygon into equal parts. I learned that
regular polygons can be cut into two equal halves by using other shapes as well; these shapes
included trapezoids, rectangles, and many different triangles. I also used congruent line
segments, congruent angles, supplementary angles, complementary angles, reflexive angles, and
corresponding angles to prove that the shapes I made inside the different polygons were
congruent. Investigating even sided polygons deepened my understanding beyond the classwork
because I was able to identify different strategies the cut the polygons in half by using the recent
mathematical concepts that I learned in class, and apply them to the investigation.
In regards to the odd sided polygons I learned that the only way they can be cut evenly is
from a vertex to the opposite midpoint, with one straight cut. In order for the two halves to be
equal cutting from vertex to the opposite vertex is the key, and this is a characteristic that the odd
sided polygons lack. I used the exact same math with the odd sided polygons as I did while I
investigated the even sided polygons, but struggled to find way to cut them in half equally.
Investigating odd sided polygons deepened my understanding because I was finally able to
provide a reason why they couldnt be cut into two equal halves with one cut, besides cutting
from vertex to opposite midpoint. The extra side and angle of an odd sided polygon creates the
problem of having to account for both these factors when dividing the polygon into equal parts.
The final learning that took place was while I investigated the regular concave
dodecagon. I found that because I could cut it from vertex to opposite vertex and midpoint to
opposite midpoint that it did in fact divide into two equal parts with one cut. This deepened my

understanding because I thought only the regular convex polygons would divide into two equal
parts.
Questions:
1.) Would I be able to cut the odd sided polygon into three equal parts using two cuts?
I was able to find proof as to why the odd sided polygons did not make two equal parts with one
cut, but maybe adding a second cut would divide the polygon into three equal parts.
2.) Would my assumptions still work with irregular even sided polygons?
I was able to prove using the even sided regular concave polygon that my method worked for
cutting the shape into two equal parts. It would be interesting to test different irregular even sided
polygons.
3.) Would 3-demensional polyhedrons have the same outcome as the polygons I investigated?
I think that I would receive the same outcome with 3-D polyhedrons as I did with the polygons,
but it would be interesting to investigate.
4.) Would there be a specific number of cuts that would divide the odd sided polygons into equal
parts?
I realized that one cut did not work dividing the odd sided polygons into equal parts, but I
wonder if it would work using more cuts.