Difference between revisions of "Talk:916: Unpickable"
| (9 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC) | 2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
: What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php 48.42 seconds]. See also below. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | : What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php 48.42 seconds]. See also below. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: r/wooosh | ||
| + | ::I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC){{unsigned|184.11.73.88}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | :2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: Looking at [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php speedcuber's results] I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: Um, the 5x5 Rubik's cube group also has the 4x4 group as a quotient, the same way the 4x4 has the 2x2 as a quotient; just look at the cube minus the T-center tiles and central edges. | ||
| + | ::: Of course, the ideal diversion would be a scrambled 1x1. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.136|172.69.208.136]] 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague ['''REDACTED'''], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones.{{unsigned|173.72.159.14}} | This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague ['''REDACTED'''], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones.{{unsigned|173.72.159.14}} | ||
| − | + | Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional? {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}} | |
| − | + | :cubers tend to refer to sizes where all three dimensions are the same as just NxN. i don't know why, it's just convention. [[User:Undergroundmonorail|Undergroundmonorail]] ([[User talk:Undergroundmonorail|talk]]) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | |
| − | + | ::Can confirm. I would just call it a 5x5, without even the "Rubik's cube" (because, you know, I don't think Rubik's even MAKES 5x5s; and even if they did, they would probably be shit). [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |
| − | : | + | :::Can confirm. Rubik's 5x5 is terrible. [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 07:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:55, 1 April 2022
2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. Davidy²²[talk] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is 48.42 seconds. See also below. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- r/wooosh
- I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) -- 184.11.73.88 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- 2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.85.164.251.29 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at speedcuber's results I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um, the 5x5 Rubik's cube group also has the 4x4 group as a quotient, the same way the 4x4 has the 2x2 as a quotient; just look at the cube minus the T-center tiles and central edges.
- Of course, the ideal diversion would be a scrambled 1x1. 172.69.208.136 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague [REDACTED], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones. -- 173.72.159.14 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional? 162.158.83.144 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- cubers tend to refer to sizes where all three dimensions are the same as just NxN. i don't know why, it's just convention. Undergroundmonorail (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
