From cube-lovers-errors@oolong.camellia.org Sun Jun 8 17:54:59 1997 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@oolong.camellia.org Received: from oolong.camellia.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oolong.camellia.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA06041; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 17:54:59 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@oolong.camellia.org Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:31:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicholas Bodley To: Cube Mailing List Subject: Designations for the cubes (proposal) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Peter (Reitan, I think; sorry) (who is not Karen) brought up the clumsiness of such designations as "5X5X5". I find these downright clumsy to type (although the Caps Lock key helps). In my private world, I simply refer to the Pocket Cube as "[the] two", the original Rubik's as "[the] three", Revenge as "[the] four", and the biggest available as "[the] five". I think that provided we understand that we are referring to the well-known family of true cubes, it should be OK simply to refer to "the three", for instance. Granted, these names require more keystrokes, but numerals should be OK, as in "the 3". There is some risk of being obscure; I feel that there are ways to deal with that. We don't seem to have oodles of newcomers to the List every day, who would need to be directed to FAQ. By any chance, is there more info. about a 6 or a 7? I last heard that a prototype 6 had been built; I'd really love to know what the mechanism is like. (I wrote about this at some length, a good number of months ago.) My best regards, |* Nicholas Bodley *|* Electronic Technician {*} Autodidact & Polymath |* Waltham, Mass. *|* ----------------------------------------------- |* nbodley@tiac.net *|* When the year 2000 begins, we'll celebrate |* Amateur musician *|* the 2000th anniversary of the year 1 B.C.E. --------------------------------------------------------------------------