From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Thu Oct 24 16:27:10 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA12157; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:27:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:29:40 +0100 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961024102451.002cf550@mentda.me.ic.ac.uk> X-Sender: ars2@mentda.me.ic.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mario Velucchi From: "The Official Thermo-Fluids Fan Club of the UK. (Andy Southern)" Subject: Re: DEAR TANOFF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (fwd) Cc: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu At 17:33 23/10/96 +0200, you wrote: >Forwarded message: >> From velucchi@CLI.DI.Unipi.IT Wed Oct 23 17:32:34 1996 >> Subject: Re: DEAR TANOFF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> To: TANOFF%SMOOKE@BIOMED.MED.YALE.EDU >> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:32:20 +0200 (MET DST) >> >> > >> > What is the Siamese Cube? >> > >> >> Two (usual/normal) Rubik Cubes in One ... >> >> >> ------ >> | | >> | | >> -----+----- >> | | >> | | >> ------ >> >> The goal is equal to normal cube but the moves are differents ... >> because the two cubes are "uniti" .... >> Do You understand? let me know! >> >> >> Sorry for my English and my Picture! >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, MV >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////// >> Mario Velucchi University of PISA >> Via Emilia, 106 Department of Computer Science >> I-56121 Pisa e-mail:velucchi@cli.di.unipi.it >> ITALY talk:velucchi@helen.cli.di.unipi.it >> http://www.cli.di.unipi.it/~velucchi/intro.html >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////// >> > > > I think I understand. There are two cubes, orientated the same, which share a common corner piece. The shared corner piece has no stickers on it, but is a "Double Inside" corner piece. The effect is that they share the same line from corner to corner, passing through the dead centre of the cube. The appearence would be like a (5x5x5) which had been cut away. There would be a cubie at the locations: (1,1,1),(1,1,2),(1,1,3),(1,2,1),(1,2,2),(1,2,3),(1,3,1),(1,3,2),(1,3,3), (2,1,1),(2,1,2),(2,1,3),(2,2,1),(2,2,2),(2,2,3),(2,3,1),(2,3,2),(2,3,3), (3,1,1),(3,1,2),(3,1,3),(3,2,1),(3,2,2),(3,2,3),(3,3,1),(3,3,2),(3,3,3),(3,3 ,4),(3,3,5),(3,4,3),(3,4,4),(3,4,5),(3,5,3),(3,5,4),(3,5,5), (4,3,3),(4,3,4),(4,3,5),(4,4,3),(4,4,4),(4,4,5),(4,5,3),(4,5,4),(4,5,5), (5,3,3),(5,3,4),(5,3,5),(5,4,3),(5,4,4),(5,4,5),(5,5,3),(5,5,4),(5,5,5), These cubes would *not* rotate about the apparent centre (3,3,3), but about the two real centres (4,4,4) and (2,2,2). I could see there being a few perceptual problems. The conecting cubie at (3,3,3) would have no colour stickers on it, hence position and rotation must be determined from the other corners. The cube would also appear to the operator to turn only the outer slice and middle slice of each cube because the operator would always use the centre of mass as his/her frame of referance. That is different to the standard (3x3x3) because the operator feels the outer slices move. sorry if this is either wrong or nothing new, I just thought I'd share my thoughts with you. Andrew Southern