In the same way that a Rubik's cube is a puzzle, so also is a Sudoku. Just as
you learn an algorithm to accomplish a certain task on the cube, you learn to
"cross-hatch" or draw lines on a Sudoku to limit a number to a square. In any
puzzle you must use some algorithm, very easy and unnoticable or sequential and
essential as for the cube, to accomplish tasks. In a jigsaw puzzle, I begin
with the corners (an algorithm that helps me figure out the outline) and I
search the unplaced pieces for one that matches the picture and cutouts
(another algorithm, even though it is an obvious one).
I dont think just because there exists a large number of algorithms to
accomplish different tasks that the cube can no longer be called a puzzle. The
puzzle is figuring out which algorithm to use in a certain situation. If that
holds, even speedsolving is still a form of puzzle-solving. Regardless, the
first step for solving the cube (like making a cross) is still a puzzle.
Cheers,
Robert Hank
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tyson Mao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Speed cubing group] Rubik's cube the 'puzzle'
>
>
> > The way we solve the cube, it's not a puzzle. The Rubik's Cube,
when
> > solved without being taught, is indeed a puzzle. The fact that
the
> > Rubik's Cube has 12 additional orientation combinations for the
centers
> > (did I get that number right) is pretty trivial. If they want
to
> > define puzzle that way, fine, we just draw some arrows.
> >
> > If anything, I think just citing the number of Rubik's Cube
> > competitions compared to Sudoku competitions, and I think we can
rest
> > our case.
> >
> > Tyson Mao
> > MSC #631
> > California Institute of Technology
> >
> > On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:21 AM, Jasmine Lee wrote:
> >
> > > Today a friend showed me a passage in her Sudoku book which
claimed
> > > that
> > > the Rubik's Cube is NOT a puzzle. Their claim is that anything
which
> > > has
> > > more than one solved state is not a puzzle. Their reason is
that
> > > because
> > > the centres on a standard Rubik's Cube can have various
different
> > > orientations and we still consider it 'solved', then it isn't
a puzzle.
> > > By this definition only supercubes are puzzles.
> > >
> > > I thought the book sounded pretty crap. My friend didn't
necessarily
> > > believe it either, but had told me about it because she knew
I'd be
> > > interested in anything that mentioned cubes. Maybe the author
was just
> > > trying to convince sudoku solvers that they are cooler than
cubers?? ;)
> > >
> > > What does everyone else think?
---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
