# about the "minx" family



## GalPro (Jun 5, 2009)

Hey,
I've been solving cubes for more than 6 monthes,

I own an official 3x3, 4x4, and a vcube 5x5 and 7x7.

I'm kind of interested in the minx puzzles,
I have a few questions:

- should I get the 3x3 minx, or if I get the 4x4, do you think I can figure it out based on the knowledge I have with big cubes?

- What is a good company that sells a quality minx with a fair price?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 5, 2009)

Could you please post a picture of a "4x4 minx"?

Do you perhaps mean a MegaMinx, as opposed to the PyraMinx?


----------



## jacob15728 (Jun 5, 2009)

What do you mean by 3x3 and 4x4? 

There's the pyraminx, megaminx, pyraminx crystal and tetraminx. The first two are much more popular than the last two. 

The pyramix is a tetrahedron with four layers, the mexaminx is a dodecahedron with 11 pieces on each face arranged in a star pattern. I don't know enough about the other two to classify them really, look them up.

They're made by Mefferts but you can get knockoff ones at Cubeforyou or DX


----------



## byu (Jun 5, 2009)

3x3 minx = megaminx


----------



## Edam (Jun 5, 2009)

to my thinking, 
2x2 - Impossiball, its like a corner's only megaminx?
3x3 - megaminx
4x4 - doesn't exist as far as i know but possible picture here?: http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90918#p90918
5x5 - gigaminx
6x6 - ??
7x7 - teraminx
8x8 - ?
9x9 - petaminx


----------



## Vulosity (Jun 5, 2009)

Edam said:


> to my thinking,
> 2x2 - Impossiball, its like a corner's only megaminx?
> 3x3 - megaminx
> 4x4 - doesn't exist as far as i know but possible picture here?: http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90918#p90918
> ...


9x9 - Petaminx

Fixed that for you.


----------



## Edam (Jun 5, 2009)

dang, I knew i was forgetting something. thanks!


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 5, 2009)

And the "2x2 minx" is a kilominx.


----------



## Edam (Jun 5, 2009)

I went with impossiball as I thought it was the more easily available one. But yes, Kilominx is much closer in terms of shape. 
http://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11392

functionally it's the same.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 5, 2009)

11x11- Examinx

I actually spent quite a bit of time once in Ultimate Magic Cube attempting to create a 4x4 minx. I had no luck, and from what I've seen online, nobody else has either.


----------



## GalPro (Jun 5, 2009)

I forgot that there are only odd layers in minxes...sorry

can you answer question #2:


- What is a good company that sells a quality minx with a fair price?


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 5, 2009)

The Intorwebs. 
actually, I have no clue.


----------



## GalPro (Jun 5, 2009)

I need something good like a rubik's brand 3x3
that doesn't lock up or anything...


----------



## V-cube7_101 (Jun 6, 2009)

If you go to bedardpuzzles.com, they are selling a teraminx, but for like$2,000.00!


----------



## jcuber (Jun 6, 2009)

GalPro said:


> *I need something good like a rubik's brand 3x3*
> that doesn't lock up or anything...



Since when are rubik's brand 3x3's good? I know there are many people who are much faster than me on a good storebought, but overall I believe most people prefer DIY's. From what i have heard, meffert's megaminxes are the best, but rarely in stock.


----------



## panyan (Jun 6, 2009)

puzl minx's are meant to be very good, but £14!


----------



## GalPro (Jun 7, 2009)

Which of these (up to 16$) is the best?
http://www.cube4you.com/catalog_16.html

I'm not really in to buying the meffert's (32$), but unless you say all the other kind of sucks and this is the best choice...


----------



## Cheese_Board (Jun 7, 2009)

Meffert's is probably the best, but the only ones in stock are the PVC megaminxes and the cheap tiled ones (not the mf8 ones).


----------



## GalPro (Jun 8, 2009)

and how is their quality?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 8, 2009)

jcuber said:


> GalPro said:
> 
> 
> > *I need something good like a rubik's brand 3x3*
> ...


Rubiks sells some excellent DIY's!


----------



## Nukoca (Jun 8, 2009)

*Takes deep breath*
It goes, Kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta, xona, weka, 
vunda, uda, treda, sorta, rinta, quexa, pepta, ocha, nena, minga, and luma. 
C+P from here.


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 8, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> *Takes deep breath*
> It goes, Kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta, xona, weka,
> vunda, uda, treda, sorta, rinta, quexa, pepta, ocha, nena, minga, and luma.
> C+P from here.



Im gona memorize this for show and tell


----------



## GalPro (Jun 9, 2009)

Guys what about the quality of megaminxes up to 15$,
are they good, worth to order?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 9, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> *Takes deep breath*
> It goes, Kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta, xona, weka,
> vunda, uda, treda, sorta, rinta, quexa, pepta, ocha, nena, minga, and luma.



More than half of those that you mentioned are not real. They're probably some random guy's proposal for extra prefixes (which we do NOT need anyway). Most of them sound stupid.

For reference, the ACTUAL SI prefixes only go up to yotta- (10^24).


----------



## pcharles93 (Jun 9, 2009)

'sorta' doesn't sound very sciency or precise for that matter.


----------



## GalPro (Jun 10, 2009)

Which of these (up to 16$) is the best?
http://www.cube4you.com/catalog_16.html

I'm not really in to buying the meffert's (32$), but unless you say all the other kind of sucks and this is the best choice...

Are there some good cubes of that site? (the cheaper ones)


----------



## Cheese_Board (Jun 10, 2009)

Must I repeat myself?

The only ones in stock are the PVC megaminxes and the cheap chinese ones. From what I have heard, the PVC ones are better.


----------



## GalPro (Jun 10, 2009)

but are they kind of good or really crap?


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 27, 2009)

*4x4 minx*

If you think about it, what really defines a 4x4 Rubik's... the fact that it has 4 slices instead of 3? Of course...

But what about the way the puzzle has to be solved... with the 4x4 Revenge, the cubes centers (for me, this is just how I solve it) must be solved first and in correct relation to each other. (Black/Yellow Red/Orange Blue/Green)...

That being said, the Pyraminx Crystal _could_ be considered the "4x4 version" of the megaminx... making it;
1.) Kilominx/Impossiballs = ~ 2x2 
2.) Megaminx/Hungarian Supernova = ~ 3x3
3.) Pyraminx Crystal = ~ 4x4 (simply due to the fact that it has no fixed centers yet more pieces than the kilominx)

Now, to answer your question about which "brand" is the best, I will say Meffert's. As to which one you should buy, I will say this, you get what you pay for with these puzzles. You pay $6, you get a not so good minx... You fork over $16, you get a better cube that the tiles constantly fall out of. You spend the $32, which at this moment, you can't, you get a good quality cube.

So, you can either wait and get a great Meffert's minx, or you can be impatient and buy a "not-as-good" one... 

Best of luck to you all in your search...


----------



## Cheese_Board (Jun 28, 2009)

A 4x4 minx would look like the one here: http://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=96714#p96714


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> If you think about it, what really defines a 4x4 Rubik's... the fact that it has 4 slices instead of 3? Of course...
> 
> But what about the way the puzzle has to be solved... with the 4x4 Revenge, the cubes centers (for me, this is just how I solve it) must be solved first and in correct relation to each other. (Black/Yellow Red/Orange Blue/Green)...
> 
> ...



No, it cannot be considered the 4x4 version of a megaminx. It is just a slightly deeper cut dodecahedron. I'm just wondering, do you actually have a pyracrystal?


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

again, thinking in terms of the puzzle's anatomy, that would be true... 

but the simple fact that each side does not have a fixed center makes it, in my personal opinion, the equivalent to the 4x4 Revenge.... i say this because even with a 4x4 Revenge, you still solve it the same way as a 3x3, but not after building the centers, then pairing the edges... just with the Pyra Crystal, you can skip the step of edge pairing... sounds like so much fun to solve 

and to Ethan, i do not currently own a Pyraminx Crystal... though i have been searching diligently to find one... and i just recently purchased my first megaminx...

anyone with any information on how i can obtain one of these puzzles, please let me know... or perhaps if you happen to know when the cube sites will be in stock with them i would really love to know...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

The reason I asked is because you seem to be a bit confused on what the brillic is. Would you ever call this a 4x4?
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/download/file.php?id=6503


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

lol... all right, i see where you coming from on this topic... and no, i would not call that a 4x4... nor would i call it a 3x3... i would only call it what it is... 

the thing is, everyone here is just looking for a point of reference... the kilominx is not a 2x2 minx... it's simply a kilominx... and an Impossiball is an Impossiball... just like the megaminx is not a 3x3 anything, but just a megamix... the point of reference i was trying to convey was simply that the Pyraminx Crystal has no centers, as with the 4x4... the Pyraminx Crystal will never be anything other than what it is, a Pyraminx Crystal...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

No, the Kilominx IS a 2 layered regular face turning dodecahedron, while the megaminx IS a 3 layered regular face turning dodecahedron. A gigaminx is a 5 layered regular face turning dodecahedron. A pyracrystal is in absolutely no way a 4x4 regular face turning dodecahedron. It is a deeper cut megaminx.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

again, speaking in terms of the crystal's anatomy, that is correct... the point is that the crystal is the closest minx in relation to the 4x4 in production...

but, i digress... you win


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

No, it really isn't. The megaminx is closer to a 4x4 minx simply in the sense that it is a regular face turning dodecahedron.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

ok, i will agree with you... you obviously are very knowledgeable in this and i will not continue to challenge that...

edit: Just one more thing i would like to add... in the minx family, as you add layers to the puzzle, you never change the centers, in other words... they remain fixed... the pyraminx crystal, aside from the kilominx, is the only one the does not have fixed centers...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

no, if you add two layers to the puzzle you keep adding fixed centers. If you were to somehow have an even layered minx (which the pyracrystal is NOT), you would no longer have a fixed center.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> No, the Kilominx IS a 2 layered regular face turning dodecahedron, while the megaminx IS a 3 layered regular face turning dodecahedron. *A gigaminx is a 5 layered regular face turning dodecahedron.* A pyracrystal is in absolutely no way a 4x4 regular face turning dodecahedron. It is a deeper cut megaminx.



you just contradicted your self... i'm beginning to question _your_ knowledge on the subject... with any number of slices, the puzzle MAINTAINS it's immovable center. the megaminx, gigaminx and teraminx all have a single immovable center piece and each puzzle is made simply by adding 1 layer...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

...
Mega=3
Giga=5
Tera=7
Penta=9

Note how all of them are odd.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

i'm confused... you said if you could somehow get the cube to have an odd number of layers, the center would NOT be fixed... all of the above puzzles have an odd number of layers and the centers ARE fixed

and how exactly are you defining the "layers", because the pictures i am looking at right now, only show that the gigaminx has one layer more than the megaminx and the teraminx has only one extra layer than the gigaminx... and to clerify that is per turn-able face...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 28, 2009)

WHOOOPS I meant even layered. My bad


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 28, 2009)

no worries, i agree with that... and is that the same way you are defining the layers, is it per face or per cube...


----------



## Cheese_Board (Jun 28, 2009)

Hopefully this will explain it a bit better.

On a 3x3 cube, (without moving the core) there is 1 turnable layer on each side, just like a megaminx.
On a 5x5 cube, (without moving the core) there are 2 turnable layers on each side, just like a gigaminx.
On a 4x4 cube, (without moving the core) there are 2 turnable layers on each side as on a 5x5 cube, but there are no fixed centers. This is because there is no middle layer on a 4x4 cube.

Therefore, a 4x4 megaminx should have 2 layers, but no fixed centers, as the one posted here: http://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=96714#p96714


----------



## Namegoeswhere (Jun 28, 2009)

The megaminx has a centre and 2 additional layers, making it a 3x3 equivalent.
The 4x4 rubik's cube has 4 centres on each face, and 2 additional layers.
The 2x2 cube has no centres, only 2 "additional " layers, formed by corners

Looking at the pyraminx crystal, a face is made of 5 corners and 5 edges and *no *centres, so it is a 2x2 like puzzle. Look at it this way, if the pyraminx crystal would be a 4x4, then what would the 2x2 pyraminx crystal look like? You cannot have less than 0 centres, so there is no such thing.
However it is not the 2x2 of a megaminx, since the actual 2x2x2 cube has no edges, only corners, but the pyraminx crystal does have edges.
This is why the impossiball is the only 2x2 version of the megaminx (together with kilominx), because it has no edges either.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

again.. let me point out that you are ALL looking at the anatomy of the puzzle... not how the puzzle must be solved... there is no 4x4 version of the megaminx in production today... therefore, thinking in terms of how the puzzle must be solved, the pyraminx crystal is the closest thing to a 4x4 version in the minx family, simply because there are no fixed centers to build on but the puzzle still has edge pieces...

that being said, the pyraminx is no where near as close to being a 2x2 minx as the kilo... as with a 4x4, if you simply turn either BOTH the right, left, upper or down layers, you come up with a 2x2 puzzle... the same thing can be done with a praminx crystal...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

No, you are looking at it all wrong. The pyraminx crystal is simply a megaminx variant made by extending certain pieces to hide the center. Just because it doesn't have a fixed center makes it a 4x4 in the same way the link I posted a bit back is a 4x4. The number of layers on a pyraminx crystal makes it equivalent to a deeper cut 3x3, which is all it is. A gigaminx or even a megaminx should be considered much closer to a 4x4.


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 29, 2009)

panyan said:


> puzl minx's are meant to be very good, but £14!



I have one of these.. Once I lubed it and loosened some screws it turns very well


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

ok i digress, yet again, you win


----------



## Edam (Jun 29, 2009)

see in the attached picture of a theoretical 4x4minx, how there are more layers. 4 of them, and the centres could be misplaced by assembling them in different places etc, so they're not fixed, just like a 4x4. 

on a pyraminx crystal you can't do that, and it only has 3 parts to an 'edge' 2 corners and an edge. like a 3x3? 






pictures are fun


----------



## Felipe (Jun 29, 2009)

Parity on a minx would suck.

Say, is there any form of axis core in a pyraminx crystal? I've always wondered.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

Felipe said:


> Parity on a minx would suck.



good thing it doesn't exist


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Felipe said:
> 
> 
> > Parity on a minx would suck.
> ...



my point exactly... if i had to pick one out of all the minx family to compare to a 4x4 (that currently exists), it would be the pyraminx crystal, because no one side has to be that color... i don't know if that makes any sense to you guys... i guess i'm just thinking outside the cube...

and to Felipe... from the research that i was able to do it looks like the Pyraminx crystal actually has the same core as a Megaminx, it's just that the body of the puzzle has been built "above" it... like my 4x4, if you take it apart, the core is exactly that of a 3x3...

that picture makes me sick to my stomach... made me remember how long it took me to memorize the parity alg for the 4x4 and 5x5 cubes 
but i would love the challenge... i think i will draw up a color version of that and post it... might be fun


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

Parity also doesn't exist on a 4x4 minx or the pyraminx crystal. Your point is nulled.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Parity also doesn't exist on a 4x4 minx or the pyraminx crystal. Your point is nulled.



i think we just came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a 4x4 minx, so please try to keep up with the topic before you comment...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

No, you were trying to compare the two by saying that since OLL parity doesn't exist on odd minxes, PLL parity must still exist on even minxes because of the lack of a fixed center, and I assumed you were comparing that to the pyracrystal somehow. 
Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> again, thinking in terms of the puzzle's anatomy, that would be true...
> 
> but the simple fact that each side does not have a fixed center makes it, in my personal opinion, the equivalent to the 4x4 Revenge....* i say this because even with a 4x4 Revenge, you still solve it the same way as a 3x3, but not after building the centers, then pairing the edges... just with the Pyra Crystal, you can skip the step of edge pairing...* sounds like so much fun to solve



you must not have seen this, but the parity errors would be included in that comment...

i think i've created a working model of what a true 4x4 minx would look like... just not sure if i want to post it here... from what i've seen, it has never been created before... certainly would be worth it to try to get patents for it first...


----------



## Mastersonian (Jun 29, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> n8dagr8 said:
> 
> 
> > again, thinking in terms of the puzzle's anatomy, that would be true...
> ...



Maybe, but do you realize how much a patent costs and how long that would take? Look at the kilominx, is there a patent on that? No. Gigaminx? Teraminx? Petaminx? No. Unless you were to get it massed produced, it (most likely) would not be worth your while.

By the way, there is no parity on any minx, even or odd (it just looks like there is).


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> n8dagr8 said:
> 
> 
> > again, thinking in terms of the puzzle's anatomy, that would be true...
> ...



LOLOLOL
1. The pyracrystal has no parity
2. You don't have a working model for a 4x4 minx


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

okay, so you still didn't under stand what that comment meant...
because you dont have dedges, you CANT have parity...

what a thick lot this is...

yeah, i looked at how much the patent would cost... and it would between 5 and 10 thousand dollars, depending on the complexity of the object/device... could be worth it, most likely not... you be the judge...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

You're a complete idiot.

dedges have nothing to do with PLL parity. Based on your previous comments you thought that the 4x4 minx would have PLL parity because of the lack of a fixed center, and that logic can be extended to the pyracrystal. The lack of dedges has nothing to do with the lack of parity.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

okay, so educate me on where i am wrong instead of calling me an idiot...

the only reason i stated there would be parity if the minx had dedges, is because both the 3x3 and 5x5 have an odd number of layers... 
with the 4x4 cube, the even number of layers gives the cube the unique characteristic of no centers, which i used to compare it to the Pyraminx Crystal... the fact that the puzzle has an odd number of layers, means no parity... is that correct?

P.S. My first megaminx arrived today...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 29, 2009)

honestly you're wrong on pretty much everything. Do you even have a 5x5? 5x5s get OLL parity, 4x4s get OLL and PLL parity. No regular minx will have any parity.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 29, 2009)

yes, i do have a 5x5 and know the parity fixes... i just never thought about there being 2 different types of parity...

looks like once again i have managed to make my self look like a total ass...


----------



## TMOY (Jun 30, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> No regular minx will have any parity.


You obviously don't know what PLL parity actually is. On a 4^3, it's a double 2-cycle of wings, hence an even permutation. It is thus possible to get it on the 4^3 megaminx too.
(But of course, the parity alg for the cube will not work and you will have to use commutators to solve it.)


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jun 30, 2009)

wow... i'm really starting to feel the 3 months that i have been solving...


----------



## qqwref (Jun 30, 2009)

Hi guys. I think a few things need clearing up.

- You can get parity on face-turning cube puzzles because each face has 4 sides. What happens is that doing a quarter turn of a face (or slice) does 4-cycles of pieces, and if there are an odd number of 4-cycles the parity is changed (since a 4-cycle is an odd permutation). On a face-turning dodecahedron puzzle, you can NEVER have parity, because each face has 5 sides. That is, when you turn a face or slice you are only creating 5-cycles, and a 5-cycle is an even permutation so you will never get into a parity state (a 5-cycle is an even permutation, and to get parity you need to get to an odd permutation state).
- The 5x5 DOES have parity. I actually find it really hard to believe that there are people who don't realize this. The difference between the 4x4 OLL parity and the 5x5 parity is only that on the 5x5 you can tell you have parity at the end of reduction, and so you can fix it then, although you don't have to. On the 4x4 you can't tell until you get up to the LL because it looks like the edge groups is paired up correctly. But these are *both* parity situations and in fact can be - and typically are - solved by the same algorithm.
- I think everyone agrees that a 4x4 is basically a combination of a 2x2 and 3x3. What people don't agree on is what defines a 2x2 (and even cubes in general). Is it the lack of fixed centers? The fact that it only has corners? The fact that it is deep cut (each layer is half the puzzle)? Each of these three definitions has a dodecahedral equivalent - the most common ones are, respectively, the Pyraminx Crystal, the Impossiball/Kilominx, and the Pentultimate. I personally follow the last definition, because the reason it is named 2x2 is that on each axis there are only 2 layers, and this happens ONLY when the puzzle is deep cut. Similarly, a 4x4 has 4 layers on each axis, and the only way this can happen is when one of the layers (per axis) is deep cut. So for me the 2x2 version of a Megaminx is actually a Pentultimate! Of course, the 4x4 version would then be a puzzle with both Megaminx and Pentultimate cuts. I guess this would be solved in a similar way to the 3x3 + Skewb puzzles on gelatinbrain.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

wow... that is amazazing... lol

i never even knew there was such a puzzle as a pentultimate in existence, even though my thoughts on it were the same...

i have a drawing of what a lot of us think the 4x4 minx would look like as well, i just have to get it posted...


----------



## Edam (Jul 1, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> i have a drawing of what a lot of us think the 4x4 minx would look like as well



who's 'us' ?


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

ummmm......... us?

and here is the model that i drew...


----------



## Edam (Jul 1, 2009)

how do you know what everyone thinks a 4x4 minx would look like? 
and if we know what we think it would look like.. why do we need a picture? 
AND I've already put a picture of what I think it'd look like.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

that's why i said a lot of us...
not all... not to mention, the model that you posted wouldn't work... the puzzle would constantly lock up and wouldn't turn, where as this one will...

and why does everyone get so offended when someone else wants to share something or discuss their views or opinions... i thought this was going to be a chill forum where i could have mature conversations and debates with other people that have the same interests i do, but it seems like every time i turn around someone is screaming "NO, YOUR WRONG, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE" or "BLAH BLAH BLEE BLAH BLOO"

i'm not saying i wasn't wrong about any of the info that came spewing out of my keyboard, i will be the first to admit that i most likely was... but it makes it really hard to enjoy something when people are constantly nagging about how stupid this person is, or how dumb that video was... can't we all just act like adults and realize that we can't be right all the time and that it's ok for other people to make mistakes or, in most of my cases, make themselves out to be idiots... and i know this is a little cliche, but, can't we all just... get along?


----------



## Edam (Jul 1, 2009)

the only sense I can make from that picture is that you have 4 edge pieces and no corners and that your slices would be something like a rubiks cheese? and that it would change shape as you scrambled?
you have a slice that goes from the bottom of the white side to halfway through the green side, and something like a D2' with the bottom half would change the shape of the puzzle and in doing so your edges would all fall out because the middle of the green face is larger than the bottom of the white face, which it would come in contact with? 

If i'm missing the point totally, rather than call me a nim wit again perhaps you could manage a better drawing that shows more clearly where the turning axis's are.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 1, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> ummmm......... us?
> 
> and here is the model that i drew...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

because a 4x4 minx would definitely have all the corners cut in half and would contain a slice that isn't face turning. Brilliant.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

i apologize... my nature got the best of me on that one.. but you will notice that i removed that from the post... (i'd rather not become apart of that which i despise)... but, i spent a lot of time plotting and mapping and calculating exactly where each slice should be placed... perhaps i should give some detail...

1, the puzzle was drawn in perspective, that is why, being on a 2D surface and all, it looks like the line from one slice cuts directly through another face...

2, the 4 edges that you see, are not 4 edges, but 2 edges created by the points of the stars split in half., and the corners have also, simply been split in two...

3, you turn any puzzle, it will lose it's original shape, until the move is complete... but there again, we all have our opinions...

4, also notice that the puzzle has 10 centers, 10 edges and 10 corners...


----------



## Edam (Jul 1, 2009)

Do you think this wouldn't work as a shape? 
aside from the obvious problems of edges colliding, i'm pretty sure it fits the description of a 4x4 minx.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jul 1, 2009)

Ooh, I imagine double layer turns on that would be very clicky, but that fits my idea of a 4x4x4 minx.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

i'm not saying that it's not a good concept or that it definitely would NOT work... now that i think about it, with a simple set of springs and smooth surfaces, it would most likely hold together... it just makes more mechanical sense to have completely straight and smooth lines through out the puzzle...


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

i guess the only way to make sense of either design, would be to build them and test them...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 1, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> i'm not saying that it's not a good concept or that it definitely would NOT work... now that i think about it, with a simple set of springs and smooth surfaces, it would most likely hold together... it just makes more mechanical sense to have completely straight and smooth lines through out the puzzle...



Which is not possible by any known means...


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 1, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> that's why i said a lot of us...
> not all... not to mention, the model that you posted wouldn't work... the puzzle would constantly lock up and wouldn't turn, where as this one will...
> 
> and why does everyone get so offended when someone else wants to share something or discuss their views or opinions... i thought this was going to be a chill forum where i could have mature conversations and debates with other people that have the same interests i do, but it seems like every time i turn around someone is screaming "NO, YOUR WRONG, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE" or "BLAH BLAH BLEE BLAH BLOO"
> ...





Indeed so, +1 internets to you sir.

This forum has indeed changed. More insults, more arguements, more bickering.

Some attribute this to the fact that cubing has grown a little bit out from a small niche community into something larger. Some people blame "new" cubers who aren't used to how things are being done, it is true that sometimes they are at fault, and i dont deny that.

I guess, its a sign of the times, perhaps?

EDIT: having read the points brought against n8dagr8, i have to say, qqwref and ethan are right. :d


----------



## qqwref (Jul 1, 2009)

n8dagr8 said:


> i'm not saying i wasn't wrong about any of the info that came spewing out of my keyboard, i will be the first to admit that i most likely was...



You're the only one who logically CAN admit that you were wrong. Quite a few other people have pointed it out before, though.


Incidentally your 4x4 minx looks totally wrong - it seems to be a hybrid of a Megaminx and gelatinbrain puzzle 1.4.3. Also, you don't seem to realize that to make a puzzle work in real life you need a *mechanism*. It isn't enough simply to draw the outside and claim that you have a model that could be turned into a working puzzle. For instance, for the Pentultimate, drawings and even computer simulations were made many years before the first working model was constructed, and it took over 20 years after the Pyraminx Crystal was thought up for one to be made. For puzzles with so many pieces, the mechanism is typically incredibly difficult to design.



n8dagr8 said:


> 2, the 4 edges that you see, are not 4 edges, but 2 edges created by the points of the stars split in half., and the corners have also, simply been split in two...
> 
> 4, also notice that the puzzle has 10 centers, 10 edges and 10 corners...



Excuse me, but what are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. Saying "the corners have also simply been split in two" is especially silly because corners are threefold symmetric.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

i'm sorry... but you'll just have to re-read the post and fend for yourself on that one....

is there a rule book on how to design/ draw puzzles? if there is, i want a copy


----------



## Edam (Jul 1, 2009)

Well about the bickering, might I remind you that you refered to us all a few pages back as a 'thick lot' becuase you got things wrong about parity?

for about 5 pages now you've had people trying to show you when you've got something wrong but generally you just ignore them and argue then maybe concede defeat after a while, like when you admit you just got a megaminx and you're arguing with Ethan about minx parity when he's done gigaminx and teraminx solves as well as various other things and whilst these aren't even sided minx's it does give him a lot more experience than you. i recommend his youtube for other interesting things btw. it's fine to share views and ask questions, but when people who know what they're talking about try and help you should listen to them. 

twistypuzzles.com is a good place to learn a bit more about building. You have to search a bit in the forums but from reading various posts and things there I've learnt a lot more than I would have otherwise.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Jul 1, 2009)

man... i didnt even realize... i dont know what else to say

thanx, Edam, for the info and the insight
and i'm sorry for not listening to you Ethan...

i hope you both can accept my apology and consider me to be your friend... albeit a not so bright one... lol


----------



## TMOY (Jul 1, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Hi guys. I think a few things need clearing up.
> 
> - You can get parity on face-turning cube puzzles because each face has 4 sides. What happens is that doing a quarter turn of a face (or slice) does 4-cycles of pieces, and if there are an odd number of 4-cycles the parity is changed (since a 4-cycle is an odd permutation). On a face-turning dodecahedron puzzle, you can NEVER have parity, because each face has 5 sides. That is, when you turn a face or slice you are only creating 5-cycles, and a 5-cycle is an even permutation so you will never get into a parity state (a 5-cycle is an even permutation, and to get parity you need to get to an odd permutation state).


Did you actually read my post ?
If you're not convinced, look at the usual 4^3 PLL parity alg:
l2 U2 l2 Uw2 l2 u2
Only half-turns, and a half-trurn is an even permutation.


----------



## Skewb (Jul 1, 2009)

so you _can_ have parity on a minx type cube?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 1, 2009)

Skewb said:


> so you _can_ have parity on a minx type cube?



Hmmmm, judging from reputation... Id still stick with qqwref.

The "holey" or void minx does not have parity, because of exactly what qqwref said.


----------



## Skewb (Jul 1, 2009)

so no matter how many layers the puzzle has, you can never get a parity error if the puzzle has and odd number of sides? and a quick question, what defines a parity error?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 1, 2009)

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/parity.html

Personally, i thought that you had parity, when you have 2 pieces to swap.
2 = even number of cycles.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 1, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Skewb said:
> 
> 
> > so you _can_ have parity on a minx type cube?
> ...


*sigh*
Please read the content of the posts instead of only the poster's names. Thanks.
The holey minx doesn't have parity, granted, but for a different reason than the PLL parity issue.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 1, 2009)

I admit, i might be wrong.

But i make a point that judging from other cube theory related posts, qqwref seems to know what hes talking about.

Also, hes a far more advanced cuber than you are.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 1, 2009)

So what ? It doesn't prevent him from making mistakes. Your point is just irrelev ant.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 1, 2009)

I already admitted i was wrong, lolumad/b/ro? Haha.

But okay, ill agree with you for the sake of peace.
I do remember when he thought Robert Yau was false, and the resulting events. :d


----------



## qqwref (Jul 2, 2009)

TMOY said:


> Did you actually read my post ?
> If you're not convinced, look at the usual 4^3 PLL parity alg:
> l2 U2 l2 Uw2 l2 u2
> Only half-turns, and a half-trurn is an even permutation.



No, I didn't read your post, but I didn't need to: you're wrong anyway. PLL parity is not really a parity case; it's actually two 2-cycles of edge pieces. That's why you can do it with only half turns (or only commutators). The only reason we typically think about it as a parity situation is that many people reduce to a 3x3 when they solve a 4x4. If you look at it like a 3x3, it looks like you have two edges swapped, but since each edge is two pieces you have two 2-cycles and thus the position is an even permutation (no parity).



Cubes=Life said:


> I do remember when he thought Robert Yau was false, and the resulting events. :d


Don't think that I never make mistakes - I'm human just like everyone else. Besides, cube theory and human behavior have very little in common


----------



## Skewb (Jul 2, 2009)

i just have one thing to add... 

i hate parity...


----------



## TMOY (Jul 2, 2009)

qqwref said:


> No, I didn't read your post, but I didn't need to: you're wrong anyway. PLL parity is not really a parity case; it's actually two 2-cycles of edge pieces.


That's precisely what I wrot in my first post. Yes, the one you didn't read.
The question asked was: is it possible to get OLL and PLL parities on the 4^3 minx ? I answered yes for the PLL parity, because it is. I know very well that PLL parity is not a real parity.


----------



## Skewb (Jul 2, 2009)

so if it is not a real parity, then it isnt possible to have "real" parity???


----------

