Worked solution: Dehn's invariant: the tetrahedron and cube are not scissors-congruent (1900)
A regular tetrahedron's dihedral angle, , does not look like any nice fraction of a straight angle, and it isn't — but 'doesn't look like it' is not a proof. The trick is to repeatedly double (or otherwise multiply) the angle using the cosine addition formula and watch what happens to the denominator: every doubling multiplies the denominator by another factor of without ever being able to cancel it, so the angle could never land back on a multiple of exactly, which is what a rational fraction would require.
Let . By induction using the identity , one shows for an integer with , for every : the base case is immediate, and the recurrence gives , which is never when is not, since is invertible modulo .
Now suppose, for contradiction, that for integers with . Then , so . But the lemma gives with , forcing — an integer visibly divisible by since , contradicting . This contradiction shows is irrational, i.e. in .
This argument (essentially the case of what is now called Niven's theorem on rational values of trigonometric functions at rational multiples of ) is exactly the missing piece needed to compute of a regular tetrahedron in the next step.
- Niven's theorem
- A 1956 theorem of Ivan Niven stating that the only rational values of for a rational multiple of are ; since is not in this list, cannot be a rational multiple of .