|
|
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)
| + | I really don't think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash. Liquid nitrogen wouldn't do it, and I doubt canned air is that cold. |
− | : 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
| + | [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.238|172.69.69.238]] 02:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
− | | |
− | ::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.
| |
− | | |
− | 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)
| |
I really don't think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash. Liquid nitrogen wouldn't do it, and I doubt canned air is that cold.
172.69.69.238 02:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)