Marc wrote: << [RWG wrote:]

Huh? Equilateral -> 120-30-30s.

That's what I said at first too--it's just the scope of the word "congruent" in the statement is ambiguous. Anyway the presumably-intended harder puzzle is the pieces must also be congruent to the original triangle.

...

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding these telegraphic posts. My original statement of the question was: << Determine which shape(s) of triangles, if any, can be dissected into 3 congruent triangular pieces.

...

In particular, a proper subtriangle of a triangle T cannot be congruent to T, since it must be smaller. --Dan _____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele