Question 15
What if we wish to combine two squares of 'different' sizes to make a large square whose area is the sum of the two smaller squares?

The problem describes a relationship between the areas of squares, which can be solved using the Pythagorean theorem.
Step 1 — Defining the square areas
Let us consider two squares of different sizes. Let the side length of the first square be . Its area will be , which is . Let the side length of the second square be . Its area will be , which is . We want to combine them to make a new, larger square. Let the side length of this new large square be . Its area will be , which is . The problem states that the area of the large square is the sum of the areas of the two smaller squares. So, we can write this as an equation:

Step 2 — Applying the Pythagorean Theorem
The equation is very special in geometry. It is the famous Pythagorean theorem. This theorem applies to right-angled triangles. A right-angled triangle has one angle that is exactly 90 degrees. The longest side of a right-angled triangle is called the hypotenuse. The other two sides are called legs. The Pythagorean theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. If we have a right-angled triangle with legs of length and , and its hypotenuse is , then:
This is exactly the same relationship we found for the areas of our squares. So, to find the side length of the new large square, we need to find the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle. The legs of this triangle must be the side lengths of the two smaller squares, and .

Step 3 — Constructing the large square
First, draw a straight line segment of length . At one end of this segment, draw another line segment of length . Make sure this second segment is at a 90-degree angle to the first segment. Now, connect the open ends of these two segments. This connecting line will be the hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle. Let its length be . This length is the side length of the new large square we want to create. Finally, construct a square using this length as its side. The area of this new square will be , which is .

Answer
(i) The side length of the new large square will be the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle. (ii) The legs of this right-angled triangle must be the side lengths of the two smaller squares. (iii) This method uses the Pythagorean theorem to find the side length of the combined square.
More questions in IT
How can one construct a square having double the area of a given square?
Why does the new dotted square have double the area of the original square?
In many of the constructions in the Śulba-Sūtra, it is desirable to construct, where needed, what Baudhāyana calls ‘east-west’ and ‘north-south’ lines, i.e., horizontal and vertical lines that are perpendicular to each other. Can you draw some horizontal and vertical lines to see why the new square has double the area of the original square? You could draw some horizontal and vertical lines as shown on the right.
Why should the extension of the vertical and horizontal sides of the original square pass through the vertices of the dotted square?
[Hint: From the diagonal property of a square, the line that bisects an angle passes through the opposite vertex. Argue why the vertical and horizontal sides of the original square bisect the two angles of the dotted square.**]
Context: So, the new square has double the area of the original square, because the original square is made up of two small triangles, while the new square is made up of four small triangles.
Q. Moreover, all these small triangles are congruent to each other. Can you explain why?
Now suppose we are given a square, and we want to construct a square whose area is half that of the original square. How would you do it?
Why is the smaller inside square half the area of the larger square?
Again, adding some east-west and north-south lines can explain it:
Why is PQRS a square? Why is its area half that of the original paper?
Explain by connecting QS and PR, finding the different angles formed, and then using tringle congruence.
Find the hypotenuse of this isosceles right triangle.
What is the value of ?
Is less than or greater than 1?
Is less than or greater than 2?
Can we find closer bounds for ?
Will we ever get a number with a terminating decimal representation whose square is 2?
If there is such a terminating decimal starting with 1.414... whose square is 2, then it must have a non-zero last digit. If this is the case, then the decimal representation of its square will also have a non-zero last digit after the decimal point. For example, if is of the form 1.414...4, then its square will be of the form—
Use this formula to check your answers in the Figure it Out on page 39.
What if we wish to combine two squares of 'different' sizes to make a large square whose area is the sum of the two smaller squares?
Why does Baudhāyana’s method work?
Can you see why the method works in the case where the two squares are the same size? Does it agree with the method we used earlier to combine two same sized squares into a bigger square?
Explain why all the angles of this new 4-sided figure are right angles and so it is a square.
List down all the Baudhāyana triples with numbers less than or equal to 20.
Is there an unending sequence of Baudhāyana triples?
Is (30, 40, 50) a Baudhāyana triple?
Is (300, 400, 500) a Baudhāyana triple?
Context: The list of Baudhāyana triples having numbers less than or equal to 20 contains the following triples — (3, 4, 5), (6, 8, 10), (9, 12, 15), (12, 16, 20).
Q. Do you see any pattern among them?
Context: All these triples can be obtained by multiplying each term of (3, 4, 5) by a certain positive integer.
Q. Can we form a conjecture on Baudhāyana triples based on this observation?
Context: Conjecture: (3k, 4k, 5k) is a Baudhāyana triple, where k is any positive integer.
Q. Is this true?
Is a primitive Baudhayana triple? What are the other primitive Baudhayana triples with numbers less than or equal to 20?
Generate 5 scaled versions of each of these primitive triples. Are these scaled versions primitive?
If is non-primitive, and the integers have — greater than 1 — as a common factor, then is a Baudhayana triple? Check this statement for . Justify this statement.