44

You probably know the following problem:

We have two circular cakes of the same height but unknown and potentially different radii, and we want to cut them into two equal shares. Each cut can only cut one piece of one cake. What is the minimal number of cuts required?

The solution is easily found:

It's $1$ cut. Stack the two cakes and center them, then cut the big one around the small one : enter image description here Here you go.

While I was thinking about this easy problem, the following question logically arose:

We have $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ circular cakes of unknown and potentially different radii (hmm yummy) but the same height, and we want to cut them into $p\gt n$ equal shares. Each cut can only go through one piece of cake. What is the minimal number $c$ of cuts required? How do you cut the cakes?

The cuts can be done however you want (i.e. lines, curves, etc) and stacking cakes etc is allowed. You are of course not allowed to measure the exact radius. To make it simple, let's say you have a straightedge (unlabelled ruler), an arbitary-precision protractor and a compass.


Any help/thoughts are appreciated.

Blue
  • 83,939
  • 2
    Initial results: The largest cake must always be cut into $p$ pieces, so $p-1$ is a lower bound. Otherwise, there don't seem to be any answers as elegant as the $p = 2, n = 2$ case. I've made a few drawings. – Paul Z Jun 26 '14 at 19:26
  • @PaulZ $p-1$ is indeed a lower bound, but I doubt we can always do it in $p-1$ cuts. (can we?) - What's more, the same problem exists with 3 cakes that have to be shared between 4 people, so even if the solution isn't as nice as the simple problem's one, a good answer should exist. – Hippalectryon Jun 26 '14 at 20:04
  • In your diagram, you are trying to cut the total into $2$ equal shares. The words seem to indicate that each cake must be cut into $p$ shares. Do I just have to get $\frac 1p$ of the total volume into each share? – Ross Millikan Jun 26 '14 at 20:09
  • When you stack the two cakes - you can simply cut BOTH at the same time in two equal pieces... Or is that considered as 2 cuts...

    Ok that are 2 cuts as I see now...

    – johannesvalks Jun 26 '14 at 20:09
  • 5
    @johannesvalks: OP said that each cut could only cut one cake. – Ross Millikan Jun 26 '14 at 20:10
  • @RossMillikan Each cake doesn't have to be cut into $p$ shares (look at the small cake in the drawings) – Hippalectryon Jun 26 '14 at 20:18
  • 1
    What sorts of cake-cutting tools and techniques are allowed? I wouldn't have realized that we could properly align the centers of the cakes, or that we could properly return to the original line of a cut after taking a detour around another cake, and it may not be clear to everyone that putting a cake on top of another cake results in two neatly stacked cakes instead of an awful mess. Do we have rulers? Compass and straightedge? Can we measure or duplicate angles in some fashion? – user2357112 Jun 26 '14 at 20:30
  • @user2357112 i edited it, is that better ? – Hippalectryon Jun 26 '14 at 20:32
  • If I put the cakes side-by-side and cut through them all parallel to the table in one motion, is that one cut or $n$? – Peter Taylor Jun 27 '14 at 13:33
  • @PeterTaylor If you cut through them all, then it isn't one cut because it will have cut several parts of cake at once. – Hippalectryon Jun 27 '14 at 14:04
  • 1
    It wouldn't have cut more than one piece of cake at once, taking the natural meaning of simultaneously. I've edited to remove that adverb and make other clarifications. There's one remaining ambiguity, which I didn't want to resolve because I didn't know in which direction to resolve it: "the cuts may be done however you want" seems to directly contradict "to make it simple, let's say you have a straightedge and a compass". – Peter Taylor Jun 27 '14 at 14:14
  • Well, limiting to a straightedge and compass makes the problem completely impossible if $p = 7$, or any other non-constructible angle. I'm assuming that an arbitary-precision protractor is also permitted, in order to make these cases possible. – Paul Z Jun 27 '14 at 14:32
  • The solution shown for dividing two cakes into 2 equal portions assumes that portions of 8 units from cake A and 2 units from cake B and 10 units from cake A are considered the same. If the cakes were otherwise distinct, this would not be a valid solution. An interesting generalization of the problem would involve different people value the different cakes differently. For instance, Alice values cake A as $3/unit and cake B as $1/unit. Bob values both cake A and cake B as $2/unit. Any cut costs $1. How can we maximize the total value if Alice and Bob get equal total quantities of cake? – Moko19 Apr 01 '19 at 12:04
  • 2
    @PaulZ That’s not true: a straightedge and compass are sufficient to divide a circle into 7 pieces of equal area as long as you don’t try to do it with angular wedges. – Anders Kaseorg Jan 11 '20 at 07:49
  • Rather than forbidding to know the exact radii, you can ask for the minimum number of cuts over all tuples of radii. – Yaël May 27 '20 at 12:41
  • "You are of course not allowed to measure the exact radius" is not very clear. If we have a straightedge and compass, we have the ability to measure the radii. Which constructions from which we might be able to infer the radii are allowed? What if a construction reveals whether one cake has twice the radius of another by looking at how certain lines intersect - is that forbidden, because it "measures" the cakes? It's not clear what it means to have the use of tools that tell us some information, but being forbidden from learning that information. – RavenclawPrefect Nov 15 '20 at 02:00
  • The 'easy solution' for a basic problem seems a bit unclear. How do you know / make sure the smaller cake is centered atop the bigger one? How do you know / make sure the straight cuts are collinear and would meet the (invisible) center if extended under the smaller cake? (Actually, the cakes needn't be centered if you make the straight parts of the cut along the line passing through centers of both stacked cakes.) – CiaPan Sep 12 '23 at 11:42
  • You don't need a protractor to solve this problem – ioveri Apr 13 '24 at 12:17

1 Answers1

1

Proof that you need at most $p - 1$ cut:

It is known that using compass and straightedge, with a segment of length $a$ and $b$, $a \geq b$, one can construct $c = \sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ and $d = \sqrt{a^2-b^2}$. It is also possible to divide a segment into an arbitrary number of equal parts. Addiontially, the center of a circle can be determined. This is sufficient for us to construct the fair cuts.

Let $r_1,r_2,...,rn$ be the radii of the circles. Let $r^{*}$ be the radius of the circle whose area is equal to the area of a share, then $$r_* = \frac{1}{p}\sqrt{r_1^2+r_2^2+...+r_n^2}$$ which is clearly constructible. Now let's put the $n$ circles into the first $n$ shares, as the same time we also draw $p$ segments to keep the areas of the shares of length $x_1,x_2,...,x_p$ in check (for convinience we call them the shares' radii). Initially, $x_i = r_i$ for $i \leq n$ and $x_i = 0$ for $i > n$. We proceed to repeat the following steps

Find a largest share with radius $x_\max$ and a smallest share with radius $x_\min$. If $x_\max > r'$, proceed to cut and remove an annulus piece of area $S_{cut} = \pi x_\max^2 - \pi r_*^2 = \pi r_{cut}^2$ then move it to the smallest share and update their radii accordingly. Otherwise, halt. For an annulus with radii $a,b$, $a < b$, to cut a piece of area $S_{cut}$, we have

$$r'_{cut} = \sqrt{r_{cut}^2 + a^2}$$

After each operation, the number of share that has the radius equal to $r_*$ increases by at least $1$. Since there're only a finite number of shares, eventally the process halts. The possible scenarios are

  • One cannot find a piece large enough. That's impossible because the largest piece of a share is either the initial cake, or a piece that it receive from a previous step. However, in that case, the surplus area received is $S_{sur} = S_{cut} + S_\min - S_* < S_{cut}$ therefore the surplus that's needed to be cut off cannot be larger than the largest part (in terms of area).

  • $x_{\max} = r_*$. This only happens when all the shares are equal

Thus our process of cutting the cakes give the equal shares as desired. Since at each step at least $1$ equal share is produced, and only $p-1$ equal shares is needed, since the leftover is obviously also equal, only at most $p-1$ cuts are needed.

P/s: I do not know how to prove if you need at least $p-1$ cut for almost all sets of cakes. Someone who is well versed in number theory may be able to prove that.

ioveri
  • 2,157