# Message #3334

From: mananself@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Introductions

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:27:30 -0700

Liam,

How would you compare the difficulties of 2x2x2 and 3x3x3? I bet you have your own opinions which may or may not coincide with mine.

I would say a 2x2x2 has less pieces. But 2x2x2 contains the hardest type of pieces (corner pieces) on 3x3x3. And those people who don’t understand parity well would find 2x2x2 hard because of the parity situation. I think 2x2x2 is easier than 3x3x3 but not significantly.

2^4 is to 3^4 just as 2^3 is to 3^3. All my comments are still true for the 4D puzzles.

Nan

—In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, <melinda@…> wrote :

I can’t say much about the difficulty of the 2^D puzzles but it’s safe to say that each 3^D is really a collection of 3 nearly independent puzzles of which one is a 2^D.

-Melinda

On 4/18/2016 12:13 PM, liamjwright@… mailto:liamjwright@… [4D_Cubing] wrote:

Anyways, how does a 2^4 compare in difficulty to the 3^4? I’ve yet to really take a proper look, with exam season coming up, but I’m curious to find out how an extra dimension alters the simple 2x2x2.

Another question: What makes it a 3x3x3x3? A 3x3x3 is fairly obvious, being 3 cubies wide, 3 cubies deep, and 3 cubies tall, but where do we get the additional x3 from in relation to the 8 cells of the 3^4?