jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) (08/29/85)
In article <3600005@prism.UUCP> mer@prism.UUCP writes: > >Not an answer to your question but your query made me think "wouldn't it >be neat to have a 4x4x4x4 Rubik's cube", since that's the logical >extension. I wonder how you'd solve it. I wonder how you'd BUILD it. After all, mathematicians and physicists can't agree on what the fourth dimension is, let alone how one would create an object in 4-space. "Some people are born to obscurity. Others only achieve it through diligent effort." the Shadow ARPA: <jeffh@brl> UUCP: {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!jeffh
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (08/29/85)
> I wonder how you'd BUILD it. After all, mathematicians and physicists > can't agree on what the fourth dimension is, let alone how one would > create an object in 4-space. Oh, boo, Jeff. In the context of Rubik cubes the special-relativistic time dimension (I assume that's what you refer to) has nothing to do the the spatial dimensionality of the cube. Sure, one can't construct a 4-dimensional hypercube, but its properties can be and have been studied nonetheless.
jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) (08/30/85)
>Oh, boo, Jeff. In the context of Rubik cubes the special-relativistic >time dimension (I assume that's what you refer to) has nothing to do >the the spatial dimensionality of the cube. Sure, one can't construct >a 4-dimensional hypercube, but its properties can be and have been >studied nonetheless. All right, I stand (or, more accurately, sit) corrected. I'd still like to see somebody build one. Who knows? Maybe it is possible to design a special-relativistic cube which travels backwards through time and falls *up* when you drop it. :-) "Meddle not in the affairs of wizards ... ... they get soggy and clog the drains" the Shadow ARPA: <jeffh@brl> UUCP: {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!jeffh
apt@inmet.UUCP (08/30/85)
I've heard of a 3x3x3x3 cube that was simulated on a computer, with a graphics screen, of course. I haven't seen a demo, but I read that it is really strange to watch the 'hypercube' being solved. The people who worked on it also made up a sort of "How to Solve the 3x3x3x3 Cube" book, but I'm sure it isn't available in any store. Not even from K-Tel. -=:| Alan Taylor |:=- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...harpo!inmet!apt ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!apt ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!apt
phillips@cisden.UUCP (Tom Phillips) (09/03/85)
In article <392@brl-sem.ARPA> jeffh@brl-semnes (VLD/VMB) (the Shadow) writes: >>Not an answer to your question but your query made me think "wouldn't it >>be neat to have a 4x4x4x4 Rubik's cube", since that's the logical >>extension. I wonder how you'd solve it. >I wonder how you'd BUILD it. After all, mathematicians and physicists >can't agree on what the fourth dimension is, let alone how one would >create an object in 4-space. *The* 4th dimension? Which one is *the* third dimension. *Pick* a fourth dimension. Tommy Phillips
wws@whuxlm.UUCP (Stoll W William) (09/06/85)
> *The* 4th dimension? Which one is *the* third dimension. *Pick* a fourth > dimension. Read _Flatland_, you will really enjoy it. Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws