about the "minx" family

[Ethan Rosen]

i'm not saying that it's not a good concept or that it definitely would NOT work... now that i think about it, with a simple set of springs and smooth surfaces, it would most likely hold together... it just makes more mechanical sense to have completely straight and smooth lines through out the puzzle...

Which is not possible by any known means...

 

[4Chan]

that's why i said a lot of us...
not all... not to mention, the model that you posted wouldn't work... the puzzle would constantly lock up and wouldn't turn, where as this one will...

and why does everyone get so offended when someone else wants to share something or discuss their views or opinions... i thought this was going to be a chill forum where i could have mature conversations and debates with other people that have the same interests i do, but it seems like every time i turn around someone is screaming "NO, YOUR WRONG, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE" or "BLAH BLAH BLEE BLAH BLOO"

i'm not saying i wasn't wrong about any of the info that came spewing out of my keyboard, i will be the first to admit that i most likely was... but it makes it really hard to enjoy something when people are constantly nagging about how stupid this person is, or how dumb that video was... can't we all just act like adults and realize that we can't be right all the time and that it's ok for other people to make mistakes or, in most of my cases, make themselves out to be idiots... and i know this is a little cliche, but, can't we all just... get along?

Indeed so, +1 internets to you sir.

This forum has indeed changed. More insults, more arguements, more bickering.

Some attribute this to the fact that cubing has grown a little bit out from a small niche community into something larger. Some people blame "new" cubers who aren't used to how things are being done, it is true that sometimes they are at fault, and i dont deny that.

I guess, its a sign of the times, perhaps?

EDIT: having read the points brought against n8dagr8, i have to say, qqwref and ethan are right. :d

 

[qqwref]

i'm not saying i wasn't wrong about any of the info that came spewing out of my keyboard, i will be the first to admit that i most likely was...

You're the only one who logically CAN admit that you were wrong. Quite a few other people have pointed it out before, though.


Incidentally your 4x4 minx looks totally wrong - it seems to be a hybrid of a Megaminx and gelatinbrain puzzle 1.4.3. Also, you don't seem to realize that to make a puzzle work in real life you need a *mechanism*. It isn't enough simply to draw the outside and claim that you have a model that could be turned into a working puzzle. For instance, for the Pentultimate, drawings and even computer simulations were made many years before the first working model was constructed, and it took over 20 years after the Pyraminx Crystal was thought up for one to be made. For puzzles with so many pieces, the mechanism is typically incredibly difficult to design.

2, the 4 edges that you see, are not 4 edges, but 2 edges created by the points of the stars split in half., and the corners have also, simply been split in two...

4, also notice that the puzzle has 10 centers, 10 edges and 10 corners...

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. Saying "the corners have also simply been split in two" is especially silly because corners are threefold symmetric.

 

[n8dagr8]

i'm sorry... but you'll just have to re-read the post and fend for yourself on that one....

is there a rule book on how to design/ draw puzzles? if there is, i want a copy

 

[Edam]

Well about the bickering, might I remind you that you refered to us all a few pages back as a 'thick lot' becuase you got things wrong about parity?

for about 5 pages now you've had people trying to show you when you've got something wrong but generally you just ignore them and argue then maybe concede defeat after a while, like when you admit you just got a megaminx and you're arguing with Ethan about minx parity when he's done gigaminx and teraminx solves as well as various other things and whilst these aren't even sided minx's it does give him a lot more experience than you. i recommend his youtube for other interesting things btw. it's fine to share views and ask questions, but when people who know what they're talking about try and help you should listen to them.

twistypuzzles.com is a good place to learn a bit more about building. You have to search a bit in the forums but from reading various posts and things there I've learnt a lot more than I would have otherwise.

 

[n8dagr8]

man... i didnt even realize... i dont know what else to say

thanx, Edam, for the info and the insight
and i'm sorry for not listening to you Ethan...

i hope you both can accept my apology and consider me to be your friend... albeit a not so bright one... lol

 

[TMOY]

Hi guys. I think a few things need clearing up.

- You can get parity on face-turning cube puzzles because each face has 4 sides. What happens is that doing a quarter turn of a face (or slice) does 4-cycles of pieces, and if there are an odd number of 4-cycles the parity is changed (since a 4-cycle is an odd permutation). On a face-turning dodecahedron puzzle, you can NEVER have parity, because each face has 5 sides. That is, when you turn a face or slice you are only creating 5-cycles, and a 5-cycle is an even permutation so you will never get into a parity state (a 5-cycle is an even permutation, and to get parity you need to get to an odd permutation state).

Did you actually read my post ?
If you're not convinced, look at the usual 4^3 PLL parity alg:
l2 U2 l2 Uw2 l2 u2
Only half-turns, and a half-trurn is an even permutation.

 

[Skewb]

so you can have parity on a minx type cube?

 

[4Chan]

so you can have parity on a minx type cube?

Hmmmm, judging from reputation... Id still stick with qqwref.

The "holey" or void minx does not have parity, because of exactly what qqwref said.

 

[Skewb]

so no matter how many layers the puzzle has, you can never get a parity error if the puzzle has and odd number of sides? and a quick question, what defines a parity error?

 

[4Chan]

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/parity.html

Personally, i thought that you had parity, when you have 2 pieces to swap.
2 = even number of cycles.

 

[TMOY]

so you can have parity on a minx type cube?

Hmmmm, judging from reputation... Id still stick with qqwref.
The "holey" or void minx does not have parity, because of exactly what qqwref said.

*sigh*
Please read the content of the posts instead of only the poster's names. Thanks.
The holey minx doesn't have parity, granted, but for a different reason than the PLL parity issue.

 

[4Chan]

I admit, i might be wrong.

But i make a point that judging from other cube theory related posts, qqwref seems to know what hes talking about.

Also, hes a far more advanced cuber than you are.

 

[TMOY]

So what ? It doesn't prevent him from making mistakes. Your point is just irrelev ant.

 

[4Chan]

I already admitted i was wrong, lolumad/b/ro? Haha.

But okay, ill agree with you for the sake of peace.
I do remember when he thought Robert Yau was false, and the resulting events. :d

 

[qqwref]

Did you actually read my post ?
If you're not convinced, look at the usual 4^3 PLL parity alg:
l2 U2 l2 Uw2 l2 u2
Only half-turns, and a half-trurn is an even permutation.

No, I didn't read your post, but I didn't need to: you're wrong anyway. PLL parity is not really a parity case; it's actually two 2-cycles of edge pieces. That's why you can do it with only half turns (or only commutators). The only reason we typically think about it as a parity situation is that many people reduce to a 3x3 when they solve a 4x4. If you look at it like a 3x3, it looks like you have two edges swapped, but since each edge is two pieces you have two 2-cycles and thus the position is an even permutation (no parity).

I do remember when he thought Robert Yau was false, and the resulting events. :d

Don't think that I never make mistakes - I'm human just like everyone else. Besides, cube theory and human behavior have very little in common

 

[Skewb]

i just have one thing to add...

i hate parity...

 

[TMOY]

No, I didn't read your post, but I didn't need to: you're wrong anyway. PLL parity is not really a parity case; it's actually two 2-cycles of edge pieces.

That's precisely what I wrot in my first post. Yes, the one you didn't read.
The question asked was: is it possible to get OLL and PLL parities on the 4^3 minx ? I answered yes for the PLL parity, because it is. I know very well that PLL parity is not a real parity.

 

[Skewb]

so if it is not a real parity, then it isnt possible to have "real" parity???