Message #1598

From: Nan Ma <mananself@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Latch Cube
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:28:26 -0400

Well, the reason was explained here:

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=250170#p250170

Basically it’s because there is another version of the applets that has
macros, for a different purpose. I agree that it would be better if it
includes macros for this version.

Nan

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Eduard <baumann@mcnet.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Why such beautiful simulators have no "macro possibility" ??
> In my opinion before reaching such perfection in presentation the macro
> must be offered.
>
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "schuma" <mananself@…> wrote:
> >
> > Although Brandon has answered the question, I would like to show a photo
> of my Latch Cube, where the front face is locked because it has
> contradicting arrows:
> > <http://att.newsmth.net/att.php?p.1157.21245.76244.JPG>
> > Note that the top face has no arrow, and therefore it can be turned to
> either direction.
> >
> > I don’t think scrambling is as hard as Brandon described. It’s impossible
> to move it into a completely locked state (meaning no face can be turned).
> The face of the last move can always be turned again. And I haven’t run into
> a situation that only one face can be turned. I don’t know if such state is
> reachable or not.
> >
> > Like Brandon, I don’t enjoy solving the Latch Cube because it was full of
> embarrassment. I didn’t like the crazy 3x3x3 series in the beginning but
> later I found it interesting. Here is a simulator for it: <
> http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20285>.
> >
> > Nan
> >
> > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Brandon Enright <bmenrigh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:06:40 -0700 or thereabouts Melinda Green
> > > <melinda@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK I’m going to embarrass myself here. I’ve only glanced at a couple
> > > > photos and videos of the latch cube but I can’t see what makes it
> > > > different from the normal 3^3. It looks like you can make any twist
> > > > you like but to get some 90 degree twists you need just need to do a
> > > > -270 degree twist. Can somebody tell me why it is interesting?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Melinda
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Melinda,
> > >
> > > When I first saw the latch cube photos I came to the same conclusion.
> > > What happens though is that if you do a 90 degree twist on a face, the
> > > arrows along the side of those 4 edges will move through the 4 adjacent
> > > faces and for each adjacent face, if the new edge’s arrow happens to be
> > > pointing the opposite direction from the existing arrows on that face
> > > then you can’t turn that face anymore.
> > >
> > > So while you can always undo a 90 degree twist by just doing another
> > > 270 degrees of twisting, often the intermediate twist before you do a
> > > full circle will block adjacent faces from moving.
> > >
> > > Even scrambling the latch cube seems hard. The puzzle easily ends up
> > > in a bandaged face mess which makes analysis of it quite difficult.
> > >
> > > I really dislike this sort of bandaging. A lot of others seem
> > > to really like the challenge though. The Crazy 3x3x3 and Megaminx
> > > planet series puzzles are another such set of oddly bandaged puzzles.
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
> > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> > >
> > > iEYEARECAAYFAk2M3WkACgkQqaGPzAsl94IMxwCgxZykcKZiNSoQ1VkKakUpoRDU
> > > iVsAn19wxwNm6vmtruKAqD/OS93RygIb
> > > =/Wxi
> > > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
> > >
> >
>
>
>