5 X 5 rare error

[LNZ]

You can't get a top layer parity on a odd ordered cube (ie 1x1, 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, etc). You can only get a parity on an odd ordered cube top layer if you're doing in BLD mode or using the 3x3 Void cube.

 

[KConny]

I also agree with dinosaurking this time.
I didn't last time because dinosaurking wrote "there was" and "didn't". So my interpretation was that TonyBHChew didn't see his mistake during pairing and ended up with this case. If dinosaurking would've said "there is" and "don't" I would interpret it as there are still some colours mistaken for others and TonyBHChew haven't looked closed enough. I just assumed that dinosaurking didn't think TonyBHChew was stupid enough not to really inspect the cube before making both a thread and a picture.

Hah, I'm sorry for trying to redeem myself. :fp

Whoa, thanks! Haha =)

Has this become a who can get the last post thread? And for the record, I too stated that the error was in the 3x3 solve.

You just posted a fix for this "parity".

 

[TMOY]

You can't get a top layer parity on a odd ordered cube (ie 1x1, 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, etc). You can only get a parity on an odd ordered cube top layer if you're doing in BLD mode or using the 3x3 Void cube.

Or using the V7 Dazzler.

 

[TonyBHChew]

First of all, thank you very much to every master who concern about the error I encounter. I'm really really appreciated.

I still remember the very first time I hands on the rubic's cube is back to year 1981. At that moment, there's only 3X3 I can found nearby my place. I'm not solve it fast, but at least I can solve it with the formulae attached (there's no internet during that time). I never went for any tournament or competition because I'm slow. After many years, I pick up triangle, ball shape kind of puzzle. This year I purchase 4X4 and 5X5.

When I first saw this error, I thought something gone wrong, I scramble it to double confirm. The error still occur in the final stage. I then try it for the 3rd time. For this time, I keep on repeat to myself with a sentence "what have I done?" Error still remain. Then I get so angry and purposely swap the 2 centre side cube and remain the centre cube to opposite site, then using the basic pairing to solve it. Some other pair was mess up during this process and finally solve all pairing with cube by cube and reach the stage of 3X3 to solve. Before I move on and try to pull out every piece, I think to myself, I should solve it and remain the 6 swap cube, that will save lot's of work. So I solve it using 3X3 method and found all 6 color solved. I start worry after a week of trying and found I couldn't recreate the same error. In another word, if I encounter the same error next time, I might not solve it without pulling it off. After that, I start searching for solution from internet and found this website.

I repeat this long and boring story just to say that I'm not joking, I'm careful and sure enough that it's not a mechanism mistake due to handling. The color of 5X5 that I have is very bright and clearly seen the different. The color they using is Roses Red, Light Brown, Dark Blue, Light Green, Pure White and High Density Yellow. So I'm sure enough that I'm not mix out the color and never believe that the same mistake repeated continuously 3 time on 3 different color sets.

I'm agree with Chris and I conclude that if I can't recreate the same error, I'll forget about searching for the solution.

Before this thread lock, I hope that all my dear master here could listen to my small request... If anybody accidentally or purposely generate the same error that I encounter without pulling the cube off, please share it here.

I'm not going for any competition, so I'm not practice the speed. My direction now is to recreate the error. Not to proven anything, but my intention is still to find the way to solve the puzzle.

Thank you so much.

Best regards,
Tony

 

[4Chan]

>>My direction now is to recreate the error. Not to proven anything, but my intention is still to find the way to solve the puzzle.

Hmm, sounds like you don't actually understand what people are explaining.

 

[Tim Major]

Can you please post a video, or photos from each side? It would really help. In the video/photos, have it solved, and have it with this, to prove you're not lying.

 

[Forte]

Can you please post a video, or photos from each side? It would really help. In the video/photos, have it solved, and have it with this, to prove you're not lying.

Can you please not assume people are lying just because they are not entirely aware of the situation?

 

[dinosaurking]

Hmm, he said he can't recreate it, so he probably can't make a video of it =P Anyway, he sort of solved the problem already, cos he can't recreate the problem (sounds like a blessing in disguise) so there's not too much to worry about now =)

 

[dinosaurking]

Oh, and don't call him stupid please =)

 

[mazei]

Tony, just read this and follow it, just put all your emotions or ego or whatever is keeping you going on this quest to solve an impossible case, Disassemble your 5x5 and reassemble it to a solved state. After that, keep solving your 5x5. You will NEVER get the case you just said. Just believe this and move on. As you progress you will understand why it will never happen on a 5x5 cube.

 

[KConny]

Without poping the cube you can do: (Rw2 Bw2 U2 r2 U2 Bw2 Rw2) D m2 U2 m2 U2 D'

It might have looked like that?

 

[Stefan]

First of all, thank you very much to every master who concern about the error I encounter. I'm really really appreciated.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Before this thread lock, I hope that all my dear master here could listen to my small request... If anybody accidentally or purposely generate the same error that I encounter without pulling the cube off, please share it here.

And now I'd actually bet against it. Dude... please stop dissing the people who help you.

it's not a parity problem, so no algos work.

Wahahahaha.

 

[Edward]

My direction now is to recreate the error. Not to proven anything, but my intention is still to find the way to solve the puzzle.

Please don't be stubborn about it. Its physically impossible without rearranging peices.

 

[TMOY]

I see another possibility: Tony, does your cube have falling center caps ? If they fall and get reassembled incorrectly, you can get this kind of parity...

 

[stiwi griffin]

that might be a possibility, but i don't know any 5x5x5 in which you can take the center caps off

 

[Stefan]

Oh and...

Frank Morris can solve that.

 

[mazei]

TMOY, if you look at the picture, the colour scheme is still the same, which would lead you to believe the center caps are still fine. Although yes you can't see the other 3 sides, but I'm sure its safe to assume the other 3 colours are in the correct position right?

 

[4Chan]

Oh and...

Frank Morris can solve that.

AHAHAHahahA. (x

Also, for Stiwi, Rubik's caps can be removed with a knife, as can mefferts 5x5s.
Eastsheen caps come off easily and V cube caps also come off.

 

[Stefan]

TMOY, if you look at the picture, the colour scheme is still the same, which would lead you to believe the center caps are still fine. Although yes you can't see the other 3 sides, but I'm sure its safe to assume the other 3 colours are in the correct position right?

Think again.

 

[hawkmp4]

You can't get a top layer parity on a odd ordered cube (ie 1x1, 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, etc). You can only get a parity on an odd ordered cube top layer if you're doing in BLD mode or using the 3x3 Void cube.

Sure you can. T permutation is a parity case. How could you get parity if your eyes were closed but not when they were open?