From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Fri Oct 25 01:26:18 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA00762; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 01:26:17 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Message-Id: <9610250500.AA13321@jrdmax.jrd.dec.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 14:00:53 +0900 From: Norman Diamond 25-Oct-1996 1355 To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu Apparently-To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Siamese Rubik's Cubes (was Re: DEAR TANOFF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (fwd)) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP A. Southern misinterpreted M. Velucchi's picture: >> ------ >> | | >> | | >> -----+----- >> | | >> | | >> ------ Siamese Rubik's cubes share an entire column of cubies, i.e. in the case of two 3x3x3's they share an edge cubie and two corner cubies. Cubies cannot move from one cube to the other. The shared column of cubies cannot be separated or rearranged. The effect is like bandaging an edge column on one 3x3x3 cube and bandaging an edge column on another 3x3x3 cube and having two identical puzzles. The idea of bandaging has been extended further by Dieter Gebhardt (publications in CFF) and others. Most variations of bandaging cannot be constructed by joining another cube onto it; they just have to be done in a simpler and straightforward manner :-) And even when a collector wants duplicates of some version, there's no need for two duplicates to be stuck to each other :-) So there is no real demand for Siamese cubes any more. But bandaged cubes, yeah some variations are really really difficult. -- Norman Diamond diamond@jrdv04.enet.dec-j.co.jp [Speaking for Norman Diamond not for Digital.]