The Necklace-Splitting Puzzle: Fair Shares with Few Cuts

A short introduction to a topological existence claim.

Channel
3Blue1Brown
Published
Dec 11, 2023
Video
1:00
Read
1 min
Original
English
Open on YouTube
Scroll to read and the video shrinks to the bottom-right corner. Captions follow your reading language.
Reading languageAvailable in 2 languages
You're reading the original English.
SUMMARY

In 30 seconds

Two people divide a necklace so each receives half of every jewel type. The short illustrates a four-type example and states that n types can be split fairly with at most n cuts, without presenting the full proof.

  1. 1The necklaceFour types of jewels appear in an arbitrary order.
  2. 2A fair splitSegments are assigned so each person receives half of each type.
  3. 3The general claimFor n types, at most n cuts suffice when each type has an even count.

Takeaways

  1. Each jewel type has an even count and must be split equally.
  2. The example divides four types with four cuts.
  3. The general n-cut statement is a claim whose proof appears in the full video.
FULL TEXT

Read the edited text by chapter

Transcript only
01

A fair-division puzzle

An example and a general claim introduce necklace splitting.

The narrator presents a necklace with four types of jewels in an arbitrary order: eight sapphires, ten emeralds, four diamonds and six rubies. Two people want each to receive half of every type.

The challenge is to cut the necklace into segments using as few cuts as possible, then assign each segment to one of the two people. In the example, four cuts produce a division where each receives four sapphires, five emeralds, two diamonds and three rubies.

The short states the general claim: for n jewel types with an even number of each, a fair division can be made with at most n cuts. It introduces the puzzle but does not include the topological proof; the linked full video develops that argument.

More from this channel

20 slides40:44EN
3Blue1Brown· Oct 16, 2026Grant Sanderson: There's never been a better time to go into mathGrant Sanderson, Constantin Kogler · 3Blue1BrownStudents fear AI has solved mathematics. Grant Sanderson argues the opposite: even if machines prove theorems better than we do, the institution of math stays valuable—and this is a rare moment when newcomers can reshape it.MathematicsAI for scienceHuman-AI Collaboration+2
29 slides51:55EN
3Blue1Brown· Sep 18, 2026The last IMO problem AI could not solveGrant Sanderson · 3Blue1BrownGrant Sanderson walks through IMO 2025 Problem 6 — a tiling puzzle that frontier models missed — and the visual patience it takes to prove a construction is optimal.MathematicsAI researchReasoning & test-time compute+2
0:55EN
3Blue1Brown· Jul 24, 2026The 64 Sugar Cubes Puzzle: Six Equal DistancesA 4×4×4 block has three colors; prove that six same-colored pairs share a distance.MathematicsEducation
33:51EN
3Blue1Brown· Jul 16, 2026What Cross-Entropy Connects: Compression, Language Models and KL DivergenceGrant Sanderson · 3Blue1BrownGrant Sanderson builds cross-entropy from code lengths and uses it to explain next-token training and distillation.MathematicsMachine LearningFoundation Models+1
Slides2:25EN
3Blue1Brown· Jun 12, 2026How Shannon Measured the Entropy of EnglishA guessing game helped Claude Shannon estimate how much information English text contains, and why prediction is central to compression.MathematicsAI History
Slides1:02EN
3Blue1Brown· Jun 10, 2026A Robot Walk and the Puzzle of Optimal Binary EncodingHow few bits does it take to send directions that occur with unequal frequencies?MathematicsScience Communication