is square-1 a cube?

[mencarikebenaran]

if yes why if not why?

 

[Garf]

I believe it is a cube because at some point you have to reduce it down to a cube to solve it.

 

[DGCubes]

Colloquially, yes. (Or at least, people very often refer to it as a cube.)

Geometrically, sometimes. Keep in mind that some Square-1s are never fully cubic; the measures aren't always equal in all dimensions.

It tends to cause fewer arguments to go with what people actually say, so I'd call it a cube or a twisty puzzle.

 

[Garf]

Actually, I change my argument: it is not a cube. The dimensions of the puzzle in reference to length, width and height are not the same. The height is longer than the length and width.

 

[IsThatA4x4]

If we refer to a cuboid as a cube, then maybe we should work out how often the squan is a cube out of its possible states (in which case i would guess no)

 

[Timona]

in it's supposed 'cube' state, it isnt even a cube, because the dimensions aren't all the same

 

[Mike Hughey]

While I haven't tried taking one apart to be sure it's possible, it seems like it should be easy enough to mod a square-1 to be a cube, by shaving off the tops and bottoms. It wouldn't be as nicely proportioned between the layers, but it would be a cube. There would definitely be a bigger hole at the top and bottom then, though, assuming it is possible.

(I say this in the hope that someone else will take the time to verify whether it is indeed possible/easy or not.)

 

[qwr]

While I haven't tried taking one apart to be sure it's possible, it seems like it should be easy enough to mod a square-1 to be a cube, by shaving off the tops and bottoms. It wouldn't be as nicely proportioned between the layers, but it would be a cube. There would definitely be a bigger hole at the top and bottom then, though, assuming it is possible.

(I say this in the hope that someone else will take the time to verify whether it is indeed possible/easy or not.)

You might have to shrink the mechanism trivially since sometimes the plastic is thin, but yes all square-1s have the same ball core mechanism where the top of the pieces aren't important at all and I'm not sure if any other mechanism is possible.

Cube Master (certified squan expert) has a great video which is a must-watch if you care about puzzle mechanisms

One diagram I got from the video

 

[Thom S.]

I'd say it it but I can see, why it isn't.
Our standard 3x3 is a cube, no questions asked. It has the same dimension in all axis and it's piece arrangements are 3 by 3 by 3. Certified as a cube.
Now, there exists a 3x3x9. Obviously a cuboid, not a cube - and I agree with that. But there is a fully Cubic 3x3x9. This is where things get a little trickier because the dimensions are all the same - cubic, but if you look at piece arrangements, it's 3 by 3 by 9, not cubic.

So move on to the Square-1.
Dimensionally, there is no current gen Squab that is fully cubic, the old Qiyi was only 1-2 mm away, would need a bigger equator, but one can see how it would be possible to design one.
This is where opinions come in. Look at a the top face, there are Corners and Edges if you draw two straight line around the perimeter, it's 3x3 pieces in line. Now flip to F, piece alignments are Corner-Equator-Corner and Edge-Equator-Edge, so always a three piece arrangement. 3x3x3 it's just that counting the Equator as an equivalent piece to an Edge or Corner looks like a stretch.

As for the cubeshape part, difficult. A mirror cube, which shapeshifts is for the most part considered a cube. But in contrast, Squab's CS shenanigans are a bit more extreme.