Talk:Dissection puzzle

See also Talk:Tiling puzzle and Talk:String puzzle. Restored because:

Not listed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3, and therefore not properly deleted per VfD
Google shows that "dissection puzzle" is a legitimate generic term, and therefore Wikipedia should have a spam-free article on it.

-- Curps 07:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate subject in mathematics, and deserves a better article, not deletion. Collabi 11:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whoever wants to improve this page

I have written a fairly decent page about this subject in the heberew Wikipedia. While doing so I have added a lot of pictures to wikicommons that can be found here. I am not going to translate my work into English, but I hope someone can use my stuff. Yoni טוקיוני (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The excellent discovery by Henry Dudeney is unfortunately slightly flawed. The "square" resulting from the re-arrangement of the four pieces is not actually a true square. It is very close, however. A few minutes applying Pythagoras will reveal the truth. John Harrison (harrison_uk_2000@yahoo.co.uk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.206.36 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haberdasher's Four Pieces

I make this edit to shift emphasis onto the actual requirement of the Haberdasher's Puzzle. The 1908 text of The Canterbury Puzzles demands four pieces, not three cuts. It's true that Dudeney's solution provides both but the requirement is the former. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]