Bafflers?

Bob · 2012-05-21 00:40:18

And mine wasn't an answer, but a request.

Bob

anonimnystefy · 2012-05-21 01:02:00

Well,your post sounded more like an answer to a question,than a sentence of its own.

Bob · 2012-05-21 02:50:43

Well, maybe. I can see how it would look.

But you didn't have a question mark on yours, so, obviously, I couldn't have been answering anything, could I?

(That's a rhetorical question, by the way, so it does not require an answer.)

Bob

anonimnystefy · 2012-05-21 03:07:06

You couldn't have been answering anything,but it did look like you did. I couldn't make any sense of it any other way.

Ever learned to solve a Rubik's cube?

Bob · 2012-05-21 03:24:27

Yes, I can do a Rubik's cube; and make pretty patterns with the pieces.

But it won't surprise you to learn that I do it slowly and try to find efficient moves rather than speed resolving.

Bob

anonimnystefy · 2012-05-21 03:36:39

What about the 4 by 4 and 2 by 2?

Bob · 2012-05-21 07:23:51

I have a 5 x 5 x 5

I haven't got a complete set of restoring moves for this yet so it takes a while to finish this one.

Never seen a 2 x 2 x 2. Should be able to do that in the dark.

I've also got a octagonal prism version. You have to be careful about the colours as they can fool you.

Back in the '80s we organised a speed competition between schools. Kids were dismantling their cubes, then filing off the rough bits to make them turn faster and coating the surfaces with oil to again improve the turning speed. Best time was somewhere bewteen 60 and 90 seconds. One problem was occasionally a cube would explode showering bits all over the floor.

Our school won the team prize but not the individual prize.

I also like those wood and string puzzles where you have to get a ring off the string etc etc.

I was given a cube (in pieces) made of 4 x 4 x 4 pieces stuck together to make odd shaped bits. You had to re-assemble the cube. I spent ages on it without success. So I wrote a program that coded the pieces and tried them in all possible places, rejecting when a piece had nowhere to go.

I set it running and after a bit stopped it to see how far it had got. I estimated it would take longer than the expected age of the Universe to go through all the possibilities so I gave up that method. My brother-in-law came to stay and did it in an hour. Grrrr!

Bob

anonimnystefy · 2012-05-21 09:14:36

I can't wait to get a 5x5x5.I have seen in person all sizes from 2x2x2 to 5x5x5.The 2x2x2 is not as naive as you would think,but it can be solved like a 3x3x3.

While watching the online tutorials for the 5x5x5,I thought it was simpler than the 4x4x4.When I tried them out on Friday,I found out it was in fact vice versa.I got my 4x4x4 on the same day in a local store.I was very surprised they hold 4x4x4 and they even told me that they might order new 5x5x5's this week.I can't wait to find out if they actually ordered them.Then I will need just the 2x2x2 to finish the set.

I would also like to get my hands of one of those Teramynx and Rubik's dodecahedrons.They look very cool,but I don't think there are any in our local stores,but there might be ones in Belgrade.I will try to look them up,so I can get them if I go there any time soon.

There are many other Rubik's cube type products,but I really like those 5 (excluding the 2x2x2).

Oh,and,here's a useful youtube video for the 5x5x5:Tutorial for solving the 5x5x5 Rubik's cube (part 1) by MeMyselfAndPi

Stefy

anonimnystefy · 2012-05-21 11:06:30

Oh,btw,here's an algortihm for your 5x5.

2L 2R 2Uu 2L 2R 2Uu 2L 2R 2D 2L 2R 2U 2l 2r 2Uu 2l 2r 2Uu 2l 2r 2d 2l 2r 2u

Using the standard 5x5 Rubik's cube notation.

bobbym · 2012-06-01 01:40:29

New Problem:

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:18:53

Hi bobbym

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:23:50

Hi;

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:26:41

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:30:19

Hi;

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:34:14

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:35:53

Hi;

You have me at a disadvantage. I can not see any of your proof.

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:37:51

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:40:00

Is it equally invisible?

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:41:47

To you yes. It will become visible as soon as I can make it such,which will be today.

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:46:26

Okay and please be sure to prove your upper bound also.

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 02:49:48

Actually,I find the bound directly. That automatically implies an upper bound.

bobbym · 2012-06-01 02:53:58

How?

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 03:03:54

Are you kidding me?

bobbym · 2012-06-01 03:05:08

Nope, some of the methods do not always work.

anonimnystefy · 2012-06-01 03:06:20

Can you find an example for which having an upper bound doesn't imply having an upper bound?

Math Is Fun Forum

#551 2012-05-21 00:40:18

Re: Bafflers?

#552 2012-05-21 01:02:00

Re: Bafflers?

#553 2012-05-21 02:50:43

Re: Bafflers?

#554 2012-05-21 03:07:06

Re: Bafflers?

#555 2012-05-21 03:24:27

Re: Bafflers?

#556 2012-05-21 03:36:39

Re: Bafflers?

#557 2012-05-21 07:23:51

Re: Bafflers?

#558 2012-05-21 09:14:36

Re: Bafflers?

#559 2012-05-21 11:06:30

Re: Bafflers?

#560 2012-06-01 01:40:29

Re: Bafflers?

#561 2012-06-01 02:18:53

Re: Bafflers?

#562 2012-06-01 02:23:50

Re: Bafflers?

#563 2012-06-01 02:26:41

Re: Bafflers?

#564 2012-06-01 02:30:19

Re: Bafflers?

#565 2012-06-01 02:34:14

Re: Bafflers?

#566 2012-06-01 02:35:53

Re: Bafflers?

#567 2012-06-01 02:37:51

Re: Bafflers?

#568 2012-06-01 02:40:00

Re: Bafflers?

#569 2012-06-01 02:41:47

Re: Bafflers?

#570 2012-06-01 02:46:26

Re: Bafflers?

#571 2012-06-01 02:49:48

Re: Bafflers?

#572 2012-06-01 02:53:58

Re: Bafflers?

#573 2012-06-01 03:03:54

Re: Bafflers?

#574 2012-06-01 03:05:08

Re: Bafflers?

#575 2012-06-01 03:06:20

Re: Bafflers?

Board footer