| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tab7240
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Location, Location
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rawrspoon
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 1597
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tab7240 wrote: | | My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing. |
I solved a 1x1x1 by just looking at it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackwidowcd
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1717
Location: Bucketheadland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rawrspoon wrote: | | tab7240 wrote: | | My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing. |
I solved a 1x1x1 by just looking at it too. |
That's even more amazing. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuitarGeek08
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 3213
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week
_________________
 
I Don't Suck at GH
| Xpertlefty13 quoting me in his Acc Thread wrote: | Honestly, thank you
This is the first real, well thought-out explanation I've seen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rawrspoon
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 1597
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week |
They don't even make 9x9x9's... do they? O_O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegibbonator
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 2496
Location: Cardiff / Weston-super-Mare
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rawrspoon wrote: | | GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week |
They don't even make 9x9x9's... do they? O_O |
I don't think so... though I'm pretty sure the same guys that made the V Cube 6 and V Cube 7 are working on larger ones, including what would presumably be called the V Cube 9. Perhaps I'm just a bit outdated with that and it has actually been released?
...I feel small for only being able to solve the standard 3x3 cube. 
(Anybody willing to buy me a 4x4 or 5x5?  )
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turbo
Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 1910
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tab7240 wrote: | | My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing. |
| GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week |
Both of you are lying :E
Tab is lying unless the math teacher actually has one, and has spent time on it. No one will solve a 7x7, let alone a 3x3 by "just looking at it."
They don't make 9x9s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackwidowcd
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1717
Location: Bucketheadland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| turbo wrote: | | tab7240 wrote: | | My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing. |
| GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week |
Both of you are lying :E
Tab is lying unless the math teacher actually has one, and has spent time on it. No one will solve a 7x7, let alone a 3x3 by "just looking at it."
They don't make 9x9s |
People have solved 3x3's with just looking at them and I think you reversed that let alone phrase.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coastercrazy10
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 1066
Location: Champaign, Illinois
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuitarGeek08
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 3213
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually i think it was 3x3. Sorry, not good with these kinds of measurements
_________________
I Don't Suck at GH
| Xpertlefty13 quoting me in his Acc Thread wrote: | Honestly, thank you
This is the first real, well thought-out explanation I've seen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackwidowcd
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1717
Location: Bucketheadland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | Actually i think it was 3x3. Sorry, not good with these kinds of measurements |
They're cubes, it's just simply how many cubes by how many cubes.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oyoefpoefpoef
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been cubing for exactly eight days. My best time is 67 seconds, average about 90 seconds. I have horrible dexterity, but I think really quickly, which is why I've progressed a lot in a week. I'm still using layer by layer, but I'm going to learn 2-look PLL and 2-look OLL, then F2L, then all the PLLs and OLLs. I'm assuming this might take a while.
_________________
| rkcr in the Sh reporting feature announcements wrote: | | Awesome. Now I can finally report all those fake scores and horrible posts I see, and the staff can do something about them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turbo
Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 1910
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackwidowcd wrote: | | turbo wrote: | | tab7240 wrote: | | My math teacher did a 7x7 by just looking at it. It was amazing. |
| GuitarGeek08 wrote: | | My math teacher was playing around with a standard 9x9 during our entire math class last week |
Both of you are lying :E
Tab is lying unless the math teacher actually has one, and has spent time on it. No one will solve a 7x7, let alone a 3x3 by "just looking at it."
They don't make 9x9s |
People have solved 3x3's with just looking at them and I think you reversed that let alone phrase. |
Yea, I did reverse it, oops. I was debating on saying 3x3... I almost went with just 4x4, but it's extremely rare that someone will just solve a 3x3.
Same could be said that no one is telekinetic  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rawrspoon
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 1597
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oyoefpoefpoef wrote: | | I've been cubing for exactly eight days. My best time is 67 seconds, average about 90 seconds. I have horrible dexterity, but I think really quickly, which is why I've progressed a lot in a week. I'm still using layer by layer, but I'm going to learn 2-look PLL and 2-look OLL, then F2L, then all the PLLs and OLLs. I'm assuming this might take a while. |
The Problem with layer-by-layer is that you can only solve the 3x3x3 and the 2x2x2 with it. (in fact it's the only way to solve the 2x2x2) Anything above requires different methods.
By the way, my fastest is a 79 second with an average of 110 seconds
But I tend to focus on the amount of moves required over the speed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coastercrazy10
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 1066
Location: Champaign, Illinois
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Technically you CAN solve all cubes layer-by-layer, but reduction is faster and more efficient with higher-order cubes.
Anybody ever try a roux solve on a 3x3? THAT is a fun way to solve.
-CC10
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
