From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Thu Nov 19 17:36:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil (sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.38]) by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1-mod) with SMTP id RAA04360 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:36:54 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:00:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Jerry Bryan Subject: Re : The Cylinder In-Reply-To: <19981117105414.18936.rocketmail@attach1.rocketmail.com> To: "Jorge E. Jaramillo" Cc: cube Message-Id: Jorge E. Jaramillo's message of 17 Nov 1998 included: >[Moderator's note: I own such a puzzle, but I would call its shape > an octagonal prism, rather than a cylinder. On mine, the solved > position is not an octagonal prism because one beveled face is > rotated 90 degrees, forming a decahedron whose faces are six > rectangles and four irregular hexagons. I don't remember whether > it was originally manufactured this way or whether I altered the > color tabs. ] I also own such a puzzle, although I have never seen one in a store. I got mine at a garage sale for $0.25. I haven't played with it in a long time. But my best recollection is that it can be solved basically the same way as a 3x3x3 cube, except that *I think* (don't remember for sure) that the color scheme permits invisible swaps of identically colored pieces which can make the puzzle seem "impossible" to solve unless you realize that the identically colored pieces must be swapped. It is also my best recollection that such a puzzle is mentioned briefly and is pictured in one of Douglas Hofstadters's cube articles in Scientific American back in the early 80's. So I don't think it is any kind of new invention. ---------------------------------------- Jerry Bryan jbryan@pstcc.cc.tn.us Pellissippi State Technical Community College