All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info

Home > Numbers
1066 and all that (Posted on 2006-01-20) Difficulty: 3 of 5
1066 and all that.

All historians know that there is a great deal of mystery and uncertainty concerning the details of the ever-memorable battle on that fatal day, October 14, 1066.

My puzzle deals with a curious passage in an ancient monkish chronicle that may never receive the attention that it deserves, and if I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of the document it will none the less serve to furnish us with a problem that can hardly fail to interest those of my readers who have arithmetical predilections. Here is the passage in question.

"The men of Harold stood well together, as their wont was, and formed sixty and one squares, with a like number of men in every square thereof, and woe to the hardy Norman who ventured to enter their redoubts; for a single blow of a Saxon war-hatchet would break his lance and cut through his coat of mail.... When Harold threw himself into the fray the Saxons were one mighty square of men, shouting the battle-cries, 'Ut!' 'Olicrosse!' 'Godemitè!'"

Now, I find that all the contemporary authorities agree that the Saxons did actually fight in this solid order. For example, in the "Carmen de Bello Hastingensi," a poem attributed to Guy, Bishop of Amiens, living at the time of the battle, we are told that "the Saxons stood fixed in a dense mass," and Henry of Huntingdon records that "they were like unto a castle, impenetrable to the Normans;" while Robert Wace, a century after, tells us the same thing. So in this respect my newly-discovered chronicle may not be greatly in error. But I have reason to believe that there is something wrong with the actual figures. Let the reader see what he can make of them.

The number of men would be sixty-one times a square number; but when Harold himself joined in the fray they were then able to form one large square. What is the smallest possible number of men there could have been?

In order to make clear to the reader the simplicity of the question, I will give the lowest solutions in the case of 60 and 62, the numbers immediately preceding and following 61. They are 60 × 4^2 + 1 = 31^2, and 62 × 8^2 + 1 = 63^2. That is, 60 squares of 16 men each would be 960 men, and when Harold joined them they would be 961 in number, and so form a square with 31 men on every side. Similarly in the case of the figures I have given for 62. Now, find the lowest answer for 61.

  Submitted by goFish    
Rating: 4.2857 (7 votes)
Solution: (Hide)
Solution

Any number (not itself a square number) may be multiplied by a square that will give a product 1 less than another square. The given number must not itself be a square, because a square multiplied by a square produces a square, and no square plus 1 can be a square. My remarks throughout must be understood to apply to whole numbers, because fractional soldiers are not of much use in war.

Now, of all the numbers from 2 to 99 inclusive, 61 happens to be the most awkward one to work, and the lowest possible answer to our puzzle is that Harold's army consisted of 3,119,882,982,860,264,400 men. That is, there would be 51,145,622,669,840,400 men (the square of 226,153,980) in each of the sixty-one squares. Add one man (Harold), and they could then form one large square with 1,766,319,049 men on every side. The general problem, of which this is a particular case, is known as the "Pellian Equation"—apparently because Pell neither first propounded the question nor first solved it! It was issued as a challenge by Fermat to the English mathematicians of his day. It is readily solved by the use of continued fractions.

Next to 61, the most difficult number under 100 is 97, where 97 × 6,377,3522 + 1 = a square.

The reason why I assumed that there must be something wrong with the figures in the chronicle is that we can confidently say that Harold's army did not contain over three trillion men! If this army (not to mention the Normans) had had the whole surface of the earth (sea included) on which to encamp, each man would have had slightly more than a quarter of a square inch of space in which to move about! Put another way: Allowing one square foot of standing-room per man, each small square would have required all the space allowed by a globe three times the diameter of the earth.

Comments: ( You must be logged in to post comments.)
  Subject Author Date
Possible Solutionbroll2023-11-14 23:31:49
re(3): one more timeKen Haley2006-02-02 01:12:31
rounding errorsmickey2006-01-29 18:49:25
rounding errorsmickey2006-01-29 17:17:41
sorrymickey2006-01-27 16:40:30
re(3): one more timemickey2006-01-27 16:25:47
re(2): one more timeLeming2006-01-27 09:04:35
re: one more timegoFish2006-01-27 06:43:22
one more timemickey2006-01-26 20:10:11
re: since i can't post a solution as a 'novice'Ken Haley2006-01-26 02:07:13
since i can't post a solution as a 'novice'mickey2006-01-25 22:06:25
re(2): simple soultion (?)ceb2006-01-24 21:22:11
re: simple soultion (?)Leming2006-01-24 10:32:51
Solutionsimple soultion (?)ceb2006-01-23 15:48:01
What , ho.HarryHotspur2006-01-22 06:22:34
re: EgadsMindrod2006-01-21 22:55:15
EgadsHarryHotspur2006-01-21 06:46:31
re: Computer solutionMindy Rodriguez2006-01-21 06:05:57
SolutionComputer solutionKen Haley2006-01-21 00:03:24
computer solutionHugo a-go-go2006-01-20 22:08:13
re(4): They may have exagerated a bit.Mindy Rodriguez2006-01-20 18:25:49
re(3): They may have exagerated a bit.goFish2006-01-20 17:45:33
re(2): They may have exagerated a bit.Mindy Rodriguez2006-01-20 17:02:42
re: They may have exagerated a bit.goFish2006-01-20 15:46:04
Questionre: They may have exagerated a bit.Leming2006-01-20 15:32:59
They may have exagerated a bit.Hugo2006-01-20 14:51:20
Please log in:
Login:
Password:
Remember me:
Sign up! | Forgot password


Search:
Search body:
Forums (0)
Newest Problems
Random Problem
FAQ | About This Site
Site Statistics
New Comments (13)
Unsolved Problems
Top Rated Problems
This month's top
Most Commented On

Chatterbox:
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information