Actually that looks quite do-able if you understand the concepts of solving the 3x3x3 cube and can do substitutions, but tedious looking at how many cubes are involved.
I found the Sodoku Cube to be challenging and very frustrating, a really good mix of logic puzzle and spacial relationships.
Anyone know if the 3x3x3 concepts translate to other variants like the 4x4x4 or 7x7x7 cubes? I have never tried these larger cubes for fear of my last shreads of cool and street cred evaporating completely, or maybe that already happened when I replied to this post. posted by Don't_deceive_with_belief at 6:46 AM on March 8
Street cred goes when you sign up here.
On the plus side, you can now boast of Mefi Cred, or Credifilter if you prefer. posted by mannequito at 7:06 AM on March 8
Frequently Bought Together:
Sudoku 3D Puzzle Cube by LIZARD PRICE
Original Rubik's Cube by Drumond Park
Mamma Mia! [DVD] [2008] DVD ~ Meryl Streep
The "solved" link is absolutely not what I'd recommend. It involves learning too many special "and then you just do these 13 steps!" type moves. I recently learned Lars Petrus' method which is actually surprisingly easy and memorable. Don't let the site scare you away, though. He goes into great specific detail on the optimal methods for each of his steps, which is entirely unnecessary to actually using his method. When working through his steps, you can feel free to spend as much time as necessary to reach the end goal of each step through whatever methods you can.
To use this method you really only need to memorize three very short, very memorable (in the sense that they have a definite flow that's lacking in the layer-by-layer method) moves, and the seven-step outline. You can easily get to the point of solving cubes in 2-4 minutes with no special skills. I was able to begin solving cubes with no references within a week. posted by odinsdream at 7:32 AM on March 8 [6 favorites has favorites]
Actually that looks quite do-able if you understand the concepts of solving the 3x3x3 cube and can do substitutions
Solving the 3x3x3 is a sufficient but non-necessary condition to making the mosaic. You just need to solve a side (not even a layer). Anyone could do this. Now if you mounted the mosaic on a glass table and viewed it from beneath to get another (or the same) picture, THAT would be hard(er). posted by DU at 8:45 AM on March 8
Why link to dsgnworld which picked it up off of the Make blog which picked it up off a real person's website? Here is the original source, and seems like it's just a silly joke.
Some potentially NSFW there in the RubikCubism link. posted by DU at 9:02 AM on March 8
Now if you mounted the mosaic on a glass table and viewed it from beneath to get another (or the same) picture, THAT would be hard(er).
I had the same thought, as doing a two sided picture would require a specific solve and mean you couldnt just chance it. As a child I had a puzzle like that, it had two different solves, a picture on each side of the finished puzzle. I think between me and my siblings we managed to finish it.
Would it be possible to have 6 different pictures by rotating each cube once to the right / left, up / down or flipped from the original solve? That would be REALLY impressive... posted by Don't_deceive_with_belief at 9:11 AM on March 8 [1 favorite has favorites]
It'd almost certainly take a robot solver, but I'd like to see a one-cube-thick mosaic with different images on the front and back. posted by fantabulous timewaster at 8:09 PM on March 9
"There's a square version??? Damn, I just finished the point."
Huh, I must've missed that one. posted by Eideteker at 8:38 AM on March 10
« Older
The Sun Ra Quilt of Joy...
| Music in the Digital Library o...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:43 AM on March 8 [2 favorites has favorites]