# The limits to the demensions of cubes...



## jcuber (Oct 15, 2008)

How big do you think cubes will ever get (20x20x20)

I know V-cube has the plans to make an 11x11x11, but what about 1000 years from now? (assuming cubing still exists)


----------



## Boopyman (Oct 15, 2008)

50x50x50 or maybe 100x100x100


----------



## TMOY (Oct 15, 2008)

Such big cubes we be very hard to handle (either because they will be too large or because the cubies will be too small), and will take days to solve. And they don't add anything new to the puzzle, all the different type of pieces are already present on the 7^3. I don't think they will ever exist (I'm already doubtful about the 11^3...)


----------



## TomZ (Oct 15, 2008)

An 11^3 will no longer be a cube. Not even a pillowed one. The pillowing will be so big, that it will essentially be a sphere. I don't know what size cube will exist in N years, but I think anything over 7 or so would just take too long to solve, and it wouldn't be a new challenge either.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 15, 2008)

ND cubes
D=demension.
N approaches infinity.
Now there are 4-D computer cubes, there will be probably 8D "real" "cubes" in 100 years.

so that would be X^N shapes. 
Where X is the # of layers (approaching infinity) and N is the dimension (also approaching infinity).
This means it is so crazy that it may take several generations of people collaborating over decades to do one solve.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 15, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> ND cubes
> D=demension.
> N approaches infinity.
> Now there are 4-D computer cubes, there will be probably 8D "real" "cubes" in 100 years.
> ...



That's quite of a look-ahead.


----------



## Vulosity (Oct 15, 2008)

Imagine a 99x99 cube, OK?

You want to, let's say, pick up the 99x99 cube, scramble it, and solve it.

But instead, you grab a 101x101 cube. 

"They look the same!", says you.


----------



## Brett (Oct 15, 2008)

I can't imagine anything higher then 8^3 being fun anymore :/


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 15, 2008)

TomZ said:


> An 11^3 will no longer be a cube. Not even a pillowed one. The pillowing will be so big, that it will essentially be a sphere. I don't know what size cube will exist in N years, but I think anything over 7 or so would just take too long to solve, and it wouldn't be a new challenge either.



The V-cube website shows pictures of an 11x11x11 that doesn't look like it has a much different shape from the 7x7x7. Their designs are pretty complete for the 11x11x11, so I really don't think you're right about it essentially being a sphere.

And the current big cube experts would probably be able to solve an 11x11x11 in less than 20 minutes. Michael Gottlieb has solved a computer 10x10x10 in under 14 minutes. So for some people, they wouldn't take too long to solve.

As for it not being a new challenge, I suppose you're mostly right about that. I think it would be fun from a BLD perspective, keeping track of all the different slices, though.



Brett said:


> I can't imagine anything higher then 8^3 being fun anymore :/


Why do you think an 8x8x8 would be fun, but not a 9x9x9? What's better about an 8x8x8 than a 7x7x7 or 6x6x6? (Just wondering why you draw the line there - it seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line to me.)


----------



## Vulosity (Oct 15, 2008)

A 9^3 might be fun...

But a 10^3 would be boring.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 15, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Brett said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine anything higher then 8^3 being fun anymore :/
> ...



Because you can use it as a chess board. Imagine using magnetic stickers and pieces. You can play 6 games at the same time! And do it BLD?!?


----------



## CAT13 (Oct 15, 2008)

I've seen gabbasoft 20x20 solves... I think they thought it was fun


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 15, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > Brett said:
> ...



Oh, I forgot about the chessboard aspect. You have a point.

But if I had a 9x9x9, I could play shogi, which is my favorite variant of chess. (Sorry to the probably many Chinese chess fans who dislike shogi, but I've played both, and I personally prefer shogi - it's just personal preference.) Chinese chess would be a little more difficult, though, even on a bigger cube, due to the difference in symmetry.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 15, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey said:
> ...



What do you mean?
Chinese chess can work. It will just have to be a size or 2 bigger since you play the pieces at the intersections and have to add a river. Edit: It would be a 11x11 cube for the pieces not to fall off the edge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi
You can see the picture here.
I guess you can use tacks as the pieces, but that might damage the cube.


----------



## tim (Oct 15, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > Brett said:
> ...



And your cube has to hover in the air .


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 15, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> What do you mean?
> Chinese chess can work. It will just have to be a size or 2 bigger since you play the pieces at the intersections and have to add a river.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi
> You can see the picture here.
> I guess you can use tacks as the pieces, but that might damage the cube.



I was just thinking that the board would have to be off-center (since it's 9 points wide, 10 points long). You could make it off-center, but that just doesn't seem as nice to me.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 16, 2008)

I think the 11x11x11 will be the biggest cube that will ever be commercially available (and I too have my doubts about it ever becoming widely available)

How much would it cost for a company to develop such a puzzle and to mass-produce it? And how many people would buy one? The answer to the last question will probably be: not enough to match the answer of question one


----------



## shelley (Oct 16, 2008)

When you're doing BLD and you have to count pieces by feel to make sure you're turning the right layer, I think it's getting too big. The 7x7 is already approaching that point.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 16, 2008)

shelley said:


> When you're doing BLD and you have to count pieces by feel to make sure you're turning the right layer, I think it's getting too big. The 7x7 is already approaching that point.



Actually, it's really not that bad. I was surprised when Chris mentioned that he does this so carefully. It didn't take me any time at all to get used to feeling the right places to turn the 7x7x7, and I doubt it's a problem for anyone else who has played with it for any time at all. It might get tougher going higher than 7x7x7, but 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are almost as easy to feel your way around as 5x5x5 and 4x4x4. Have you tried it? It really is surprisingly easy.


----------



## Brett (Oct 16, 2008)

> Why do you think an 8x8x8 would be fun, but not a 9x9x9? What's better about an 8x8x8 than a 7x7x7 or 6x6x6? (Just wondering why you draw the line there - it seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line to me.)



The difference between 6x6x6 and 8x8x8 seems pretty major to me. Making pairs of 4 compared to 6 in the centers is more difficult, but not too the point where it would just be annoying. 9x9x9 would be the same as the 8x8x8, but without PLL parity, so it'd be easier. 

Plus the 8x8x8, in my opinion, would be the most realistic to try to create in any relatively short time span.


----------



## Erik (Oct 16, 2008)

I bet the 11x11 would not even be worldwide available ever. Who would want one? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## nitrocan (Oct 16, 2008)

The 7 is enough I think. More than that would be boring.


----------



## Neutrals01 (Oct 16, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey said:
> ...



I like shogi too.. but the one I am playing is called hasami shogi(able to use chess board to play)...there are way too many different ways of playing shogi I guess I also like most of the board games..(chess,chinese chess,reversi,checkers,animal chess and more)..

oh ya.. imagine a fast big cube solver solving the 8x8x8 and the U layer place the magnetic chess tiles and then 2 pro chess players challenging each other..(when U layer turns..imagining playing chess with the board keep turning around) sounds cool..I would want to try it one day, if able to find a chess board that can spin...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 16, 2008)

Erik said:


> I bet the 11x11 would not even be worldwide available ever. Who would want one? I know I wouldn't.


I would!! But then, I'm sure you already knew that. 

Realistically, I think there are a lot of collectors who would want one. Still a relatively small number of people, but enough to make a market if the price was high enough.

Remember the excitement over on TwistyPuzzles when the 9x9x9 hoax happened? I'll bet there were ten or more people over there who would have paid $1000 for one of those.

By the way, I would want one, but I certainly wouldn't pay $1000 for it. It has to be at a mass-marketed price for me to be interested.


----------



## shelley (Oct 16, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > When you're doing BLD and you have to count pieces by feel to make sure you're turning the right layer, I think it's getting too big. The 7x7 is already approaching that point.
> ...



I tried it once. But since I still don't own one yet, maybe it's just a matter of playing with it and getting more used to the feel.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 16, 2008)

I would probably get 2 white ones and 2 black ones, but I don't think I will include them in the weekly competition (after all, you only have a week)


----------



## Swoncen (Oct 16, 2008)

I think I would also buy a 20x20x20.. why not? Why did you buy a 7x7x7? 3x3x3 is enough.. ?


----------



## jcuber (Oct 16, 2008)

What was the 9x9 twistypuzzles hoax?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 16, 2008)

jcuber said:


> What was the 9x9 twistypuzzles hoax?



http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6315

Note this didn't originally have "THIS POST IS A HOAX" at the beginning. He had a lot of people going. (Me too.) He went several days before revealing it.

This is also fun: http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6388


----------



## griz (Oct 18, 2008)

think about this a 6x6 is the highest they could make with out it being slightly spherical. the 7x7 is a bit bulgy so I would imagine the 11x11 would be almost a sphere.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 18, 2008)

10x10 for Monopoly.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 20, 2008)

griz said:


> think about this a 6x6 is the highest they could make with out it being slightly spherical. the 7x7 is a bit bulgy so I would imagine the 11x11 would be almost a sphere.



They've already got patents for up through 11x11x11. So we can see how they're making them, and they're not almost a sphere. I'm not speculating - we already know what they look like. They're about the same shape as a 7x7x7 - in fact, they look a little less spherical than a 7x7x7, actually. I suspect that if they make it, the pillowed 6x6x6 will be the closest to spherical of all of the designs, actually.


----------



## Schvetlana (Nov 4, 2008)

going too big might ruin the fun in cubing...


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Nov 4, 2008)

You people have no idea how long this discussion could go on for  Oh well, I think that the fun of solving big cubes will stop at about 9 or 10...but what about a 4D 3x3 in material form; that would be something, eh?


----------



## DcF1337 (Nov 4, 2008)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> You people have no idea how long this discussion could go on for  Oh well, I think that the fun of solving big cubes will stop at about 9 or 10...but what about *a 4D 3x3 in material form*; that would be something, eh?



Err, I doubt that's even possible. We live in a 3D world, right?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Nov 4, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > You people have no idea how long this discussion could go on for  Oh well, I think that the fun of solving big cubes will stop at about 9 or 10...but what about *a 4D 3x3 in material form*; that would be something, eh?
> ...



4D, 3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of time.


----------



## Scigatt (Nov 4, 2008)

1000 years from now we will all be embedded in computers and solving 5x5x5x5x5 "cubes" regularly. The 3x3x3 will be seen as fit only for whatever the equivalent of a small child is.

Either that or there will no people left to solve the cube. However, aliens will conduct archaeological digs and rediscover it, thus starting the fad all over again.


----------



## Waynilein (Nov 4, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> DcF1337 said:
> 
> 
> > EmersonHerrmann said:
> ...



Solving the 4D cube takes time, so the cube is 5D, if you will. But surely there can be a "simulation" of a 4D cube, just like you would draw a 3D object on a 2D sheet of paper.


----------

