Higher Order Cube Difficulty Poll

[Daryl]

5x5+ they don't get difficult, it just consume more time, more edges to pair..
It just difficult to solve it quickly (at least for myself)

 

[JasonDL13]

There's a difference between time consuming and hard. A 4x4 is easier then a 5x5 because of parity. There for, a 7x7 is easier then a 4x4. No parity, just more pieces to solve, so it takes more time.

 

[qqwref]

No parity? Have you ever solved a 7x7x7? There's parity in each of the two wing orbits, just like the 5x5x5 but twice as much. The fact that you have to do it during edge pairing (if you use reduction) doesn't change that.

Besides parity, though, I'd say that 7x7x7 is quite a bit harder than 4x4x4 because of centers. They're pretty much trivial on the 4x4x4, but on the 7x7x7 you have to deal with building separate rows and combining them, fixed centers, and obliques (and in addition you can't always build the last two centers just by doing row by row).

I think the dividing line is after 7x7x7 - by that point you've seen every piece type together, so there's really nothing new to throw at you.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

I think the line is before 7x7. A lot of people seem to think the line is 5x5, and I don't know where they're coming from either. The last new things are parities and obliques, and both of those happen at 6x6. What new piece type is there on 7x7? It's a 6x6 that has middle edges and plus centers, both of which 5x5 prepares you for. 6x6 is the line.

 

[qqwref]

7x7x7 has no new pieces, but it's the first time that you have obliques and fixed centers together. You could argue it doesn't matter, but at least it's a new situation.

 

[JasonDL13]

No parity? Have you ever solved a 7x7x7?

Oops! I mean no permutation parity

 

[AlGoreRhythm]

If we could get 100 replies, that would be awesome! SO far the poll is leaning towards, "Yes, but not significantly"

 

[teboecubes]

In my opinion 6x6 is more difficult than 7x7, but from there, it just gets more time consuming, not really hard

 

[I_<3_SCS]

Juss saeing, this is a tewible way to conduct wesearch. The adience may be wight, but you have no idea who we are exept that we like cbing. Then, what if I just put a wandom answer to your poll to scwew with your wesults? Additioally, I don't even see how this could be a science fair projekt??? Lastly, you're leading us on... like you put lading answers that skew reslts like a like a dat won dat saes dis:
No, They were easy after 5x5.

cum on now, this is compleely unscientfic. u shud do a prper exeriment, damet.

 

[One Wheel]

Juss saeing, this is a tewible way to conduct wesearch. The adience may be wight, but you have no idea who we are exept that we like cbing. Then, what if I just put a wandom answer to your poll to scwew with your wesults? Additioally, I don't even see how this could be a science fair projekt??? Lastly, you're leading us on... like you put lading answers that skew reslts like a like a dat won dat saes dis:
No, They were easy after 5x5.

cum on now, this is compleely unscientfic. u shud do a prper exeriment, damet.

This thread was just bumped 3 years, so the original question is irrelevant. More importantly, if you ever want anybody to take you seriously then spell properly, and if you want to make a joke then wait until you think of something witty.

 

[Ordway Persyn]

Juss saeing, this is a tewible way to conduct wesearch. The adience may be wight, but you have no idea who we are exept that we like cbing. Then, what if I just put a wandom answer to your poll to scwew with your wesults? Additioally, I don't even see how this could be a science fair projekt??? Lastly, you're leading us on... like you put lading answers that skew reslts like a like a dat won dat saes dis:
No, They were easy after 5x5.

cum on now, this is compleely unscientfic. u shud do a prper exeriment, damet.

Is this Elmer Fudd? This is the kind of comment you would find on a popular youtube video, not on a moderated forum.