h a l f b a k e r yViva los semi-panaderos!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
If you're only swapping colours on the bottom face then it would presumably be possible to beat by solving one face and then turning that to the bottom. |
|
|
I wonder whether it's possible to design a (passive) apparently syntactically correct Rubik's cube which can't be solved. Of course you can create something which would pass rudimentary inspection by arranging, say, for edges and/or vertex cubes to show combinations of all six colours. This is easy, by swapping coloured stickers between the component cubes. But I suppose that if you effectively take a Rubik's cube to bits and reassemble it -without moving coloured stickers around - you might be able to create a much more subtle issue which would prevent the cube from being solved.
<edit>The Wikipedia Rubik's cube article states that there are 12 distinguishable configurations of the cube, but these differ only by swapping a single pair of pieces or rotate a single corner or edge cube. It would be relatively easy to determine a trick cube by near-solving and identifying the swapped pieces or rotated piece. Which means that an active method would be necessary. |
|
|
Not long after I first got a rubik's cube I disassembled it and put it together again (randomly) only to realise I could no longer solve it. |
|
|
Never quite understood the obsession with peeling the stickers off when you can take them apart so much easier. |
|
|
Maybe a passive cube which allows a non-standard rotation easily would catch people out? If you could solve it in front to them, but then slyly rotate a corner when you scramble it, it might work. |
|
| |