From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu  Sun Apr  5 23:28:33 1998
Return-Path: <cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.1/mc) with SMTP
	id XAA21469; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Mail-from: From cube-lovers-request@life.ai.mit.edu Sun Apr  5 18:06:04 1998
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 18:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse  <mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca>
Message-Id: <199804052205.SAA03822@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pretty vs. Not-So-Pretty Isoglyphs

> On the other hand,
>    U B2 R2 F2 L2 U L2 F2 U2 R' B' R F' L' U2 B2 R2 B' D' U'
> is a real mess in my opinion, even though it is a continuous
> isoglyph.

I think this (the pattern, not the operator to produce it) is actually
rather striking and pretty - provided you look at the cube along the
URB-LDF corner-to-corner axis.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B