|
Post by speedwell on Oct 27, 2015 10:29:33 GMT
Am I the only one who thinks the exchange program between the forest and the Court is a bit messed up, at least when it comes to animals? Keep in mind, "Bunny Boy" used to be a female rabbit, and was forced to turn male due to the Court's demand for balance. Granted, she seems to be well-adjusted to it, but still, imagine if you were forced to dress up as the opposite gender in order to go to somewhere you perceive as being a better place to live. this presumes she had a gender identity like humans do along with her sexual classification as female. Gender is more than how you dress. Folks, this subject is being discussed in great depth in this separate thread: gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/thread/3270/forest-creatures-gender
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Oct 27, 2015 15:59:27 GMT
Yes, I actually am lame enough to register just to comment on this. The cube actually seems consistent if you place the yellow on the left side across from the green, which makes the blue side on the top across from the white. In a random scramble you wouldn't expect to have all of the (presumably) orange pieces not visible. However, there's nothing that says this is a random scramble, it could be a partial solve or otherwise have all of the orange stickers on one of the three sides not facing the camera. I have been staring at this page and my rubik's cube for half an hour now, trying to replicate Tom's version with my cube by imagining the colour constellation you've suggested, and a few of my own. But, alas, either Tom's cube is not consistent or I am just to tired for this (it's 2:30 a.m.). I suspect it is the latter, and I just have to switch three colour positions, which my brain is objecting against right now. I'll try again tomorrow! Also: welcome to the forum! I have disassembled my cube, swapped the colors around in the picture so that it looks like it’s a valid cube, and tried to reassemble it. I am now entirely convinced that the cube Tom has drawn in unsolvable, and not only that, but it is unsolvable even if you rotate/flip the corner/side pieces. Here is what I have concluded: if you take two non-opposing colors, there will be exactly two corner pieces that contain those two colors, and you can tell them apart based on their position. That is, if I see a corner piece with a red on the front face, a blue on the bottom face, and a hidden color on the left face of the cube, I know that the hidden color is yellow. If I also see another corner piece showing yellow and blue, then the hidden color must be orange. What we have in the comic is this: a corner piece that shows colors A and B positioned in such a way that the hidden color must be C, and another piece showing colors A and C positioned in a way that suggests the hidden color is B. Either the same piece is in two different places, or two of the stickers in one of the corner pieces have been swapped. Either way, it’s an unsolvable cube, even if you disassemble it. Even swapping the colors of the faces won’t solve this problem. I’m sorry if this explanation is too confusing. The two problematic pieces are the ones with red-yellow and blue-red on the bottom face, in case anyone’s wondering. It’s very likely that Tom just colored the cube randomly... and forgot one of the colors. Also, as if it wasn’t enough that the cube as rendered in the first panel is unsolvable, some of the stickers apparently change color from a panel to another for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Oct 27, 2015 16:09:29 GMT
It’s very likely that Tom just colored the cube randomly. And forgot one of the colors. Heresy! If Tom drew an unsolveable Rubix Cube, he must have done it intentionally to vex the readers who would try and solve it. Maybe the Rubix Cube is an analogy for Annie. I doubt I am the first to say that, but I am not sure who proceeded me.
|
|
|
Post by OmnipotentEntity on Oct 27, 2015 17:26:49 GMT
I have been staring at this page and my rubik's cube for half an hour now, trying to replicate Tom's version with my cube by imagining the colour constellation you've suggested, and a few of my own. But, alas, either Tom's cube is not consistent or I am just to tired for this (it's 2:30 a.m.). I suspect it is the latter, and I just have to switch three colour positions, which my brain is objecting against right now. I'll try again tomorrow! Also: welcome to the forum! I have disassembled my cube, swapped the colors around in the picture so that it looks like it’s a valid cube, and tried to reassemble it. I am now entirely convinced that the cube Tom has drawn in unsolvable, and not only that, but it is unsolvable even if you rotate/flip the corner/side pieces. Here is what I have concluded: if you take two non-opposing colors, there will be exactly two corner pieces that contain those two colors, and you can tell them apart based on their position. That is, if I see a corner piece with a red on the front face, a blue on the bottom face, and a hidden color on the left face of the cube, I know that the hidden color is yellow. If I also see another corner piece showing yellow and blue, then the hidden color must be orange. What we have in the comic is this: a corner piece that shows colors A and B positioned in such a way that the hidden color must be C, and another piece showing colors A and C positioned in a way that suggests the hidden color is B. Either the same piece is in two different places, or two of the stickers in one of the corner pieces have been swapped. Either way, it’s an unsolvable cube, even if you disassemble it. Even swapping the colors of the faces won’t solve this problem. I’m sorry if this explanation is too confusing. The two problematic pieces are the ones with red-yellow and blue-red on the bottom face, in case anyone’s wondering. It’s very likely that Tom just colored the cube randomly... and forgot one of the colors. Also, as if it wasn’t enough that the cube as rendered in the first panel is unsolvable, some of the stickers apparently change color from a panel to another for no reason. Let's explore. I am using standard cube notation with the face facing the camera with the center color red is the front face. From the centers we can see that F is red, R is yellow, D is blue. We can reorient the red-yellow-white cubie to its correct location using DF2, this implies that U must be white. From the red-green edge cubie at the FR edge we know that L must be green. This leaves the hidden color on B. In the first panel we have 4 fully visible cubies and three corners with two visible stickers. Let's look at them and see if they are inconsistent: (Deduced colors are in parens). FRU cubie: Red - Green - (White). To place: U', no problem. FR cubie: Red - Green. To place F2: used in deduction, no problem by definition. FRD cubie: Red - Yellow - White. To place: DF2, used in deduction, no problem by definition. FD cubie: Blue - Red. To place: F'R'D', no problem. RD cubie: Green - White. To place: RF'U, no problem. DRB cubie: Red - Blue - (Yellow). To place: D', no problem. FDL cubie: Blue - Yellow - (Red). To place: D, no problem. Finally, we have to consider where on earth could all the sixth color stickers must be hanging out. However, there are 4 corners we don't see more than one sticker of. And of those one of them carries the red color. This means that it cannot also have the sixth color. This cube is impossible because of this.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Oct 27, 2015 20:26:15 GMT
It’s very likely that Tom just colored the cube randomly. And forgot one of the colors. Heresy! If Tom drew an unsolveable Rubix Cube, he must have done it intentionally to vex the readers who would try and solve it. This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by OmnipotentEntity on Oct 27, 2015 20:38:50 GMT
Heresy! If Tom drew an unsolveable Rubix Cube, he must have done it intentionally to vex the readers who would try and solve it. This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose. As a go player I can relate:
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Oct 27, 2015 21:31:47 GMT
Heresy! If Tom drew an unsolveable Rubix Cube, he must have done it intentionally to vex the readers who would try and solve it. This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose. I never paid attention to the moves people playing chess make on movies/TV, but I always notice when the board is rotated 90 degrees, or the king/queen positions are flipped in the initial setup, or in the case of animated shows, when the board is nine by nine (or, even worse, nine by eight) for no apparent reason. It always makes me a lot more mad than it should. In the case of the Rubik’s cube here, I keep wondering why the hell Tom didn’t pick up a cube (and scrambled it if necessary) and used it as a reference. The only reason I can think of for doing that on purpose (which I don’t think he did) is to intentionally annoy anyone who pays enough attention to this kind of details.
|
|
|
Post by arf on Oct 27, 2015 21:45:59 GMT
This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose. As a go player I can relate: The only way that makes sense is that Black has just placed a piece, and has yet to claim the capture.
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Oct 27, 2015 22:07:17 GMT
This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose. I never paid attention to the moves people playing chess make on movies/TV, but I always notice when the board is rotated 90 degrees, or the king/queen positions are flipped in the initial setup, or in the case of animated shows, when the board is nine by nine (or, even worse, nine by eight) for no apparent reason. It always makes me a lot more mad than it should. In the case of the Rubik’s cube here, I keep wondering why the hell Tom didn’t pick up a cube (and scrambled it if necessary) and used it as a reference. The only reason I can think of for doing that on purpose (which I don’t think he did) is to intentionally annoy anyone who pays enough attention to this kind of details. Maybe the Court intentionally gives Foley students unsolvable Rubik Cubes, because the Court are a bunch of jerks. The first Foley student to pronounce that the cube is unsolvable, with the explanation for why it is unsolvable, passes the test. Congratulations QuotePilgrim, you've earned a gold star! fish would have gotten the gold star, but she wss too tired to know she was right. I am assuming that fish and QuotePilgrim are correct. It doesn't earn a gold star, but I took the other way to beat the test, refuse to take it.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Oct 28, 2015 23:20:02 GMT
Is everyone just going to pretend like that cube doesn't have an impossible piece? Where? I am no scholar of the veracity of Rubik's Cubes. The two front corners (Seen as the top layer is rotated) would have to be identical to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Oct 28, 2015 23:25:05 GMT
Also, I think it's really cool that Snuffle can look at part of the cube and almost immediately come up with a way to solve in less than five-tens moves, yet actually lacks the ability to describe the exact number. It's so interesting to see a fictional creature whose mind works on a completely different level from a typical human's. It adds a lot of depth, whether or not Tom intended it.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 29, 2015 1:41:03 GMT
Also, I think it's really cool that Snuffle can look at part of the cube and almost immediately come up with a way to solve in less than five-tens moves, yet actually lacks the ability to describe the exact number. It's so interesting to see a fictional creature whose mind works on a completely different level from a typical human's. It adds a lot of depth, whether or not Tom intended it. Is probably the lack of understanding of numbers as abstract things. Actually, I agree with the Woods here, numbers don't really exist.
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Nov 4, 2015 8:13:50 GMT
Heresy! If Tom drew an unsolveable Rubix Cube, he must have done it intentionally to vex the readers who would try and solve it. This is how I feel when I see people play chess in TV shows and movies. Surely they're doing it wrong on purpose. It's funny because the first unit on a TV show (ie the people shooting the actors) care waaaay too much about accuracy, even on really dumb shows. But insert shots, like of chess games and etc, are shot by the second unit. And they don't give a fuuuuuuuuck
|
|