Received: from WAIKATO.S4CC.Symbolics.COM (TCP 20024231532) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 4 Nov 86 18:25:14 EST Received: from ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM by WAIKATO.S4CC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 71267; Tue 4-Nov-86 18:23:59 EST Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 18:22 EST From: Allan C. Wechsler Subject: rubiks magic To: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, beck@clstr1.decnet, cube-lovers@MIT-AI.ARPA In-Reply-To: <861104170610.5.DCP@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Message-ID: <861104182207.9.ACW@ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 17:06 EST From: David C. Plummer Rubik's Magic is available at "Games people play" near Harvard Square for a little under $15. As usual, Carol Monica is charging unreasonable prices. Boycott this moderately obnoxious woman and buy your Magic from Zayre or Bradlee's at about $7-8. It's a good puzzle for playing with and relieving the fidgets. Mathematically it isn't very interesting, nor are there any "pretty patterns" other than solved1 and solved2. The "pretty patterns" are more sculptural than geometrical. Can you make a cube? Mathematically, there are a couple of interesting points. There are sixteen achievable 2x4 configurations, linked by a nice little rosette of generators. Unsolved stumper: The pattern XXX X X XXX appears unreachable, but we haven't been able to prove it. Can someone come up with a proof? (Or -- hope against hope -- has anyone achieved it?) I find the mechanical aspect more pleasing than the cube. "Magic" is more satisfying to manipulate than almost any of its predecessors. The linking principle can be generalized to any number of squares. I am considering breaking a couple and wiring them together to make Big Magic.