Subject:
|
Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:55:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4107 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.schleim, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, David Eaton wrote:
| |
Of course, the thing that’s still missing is the 3x3x3 cube! We’ve
discovered how to make a 2x2x2, a 4x4x4, 5x5x5, and anything larger that’s
an integer multiple of studs... But no 3x3x3’s :(
The other thing that I haven’t seen tried is making non-integer multiple
cubes. Could you, say, make a cube whose edges were 3.5 long? Or 4 studs and
2 plates? I doubt anyone’s gonna get one that’s smaller than a 2-stud long
side, but if anyone can, I’d still love to see it!
DaveE
|
hmmm. I have a suspicion that most non-integer cubes are impossible because
of the way the surfaces can be constructed.
|
Of course this should be all non-integer cubes are impossible...
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Timothy Gould wrote: (snip) (...) I'm not so sure about that... If I understand correctly, the main issue here is to produce a flat square surface with a non-integer number of studs as side, right? Because that is certainly (...) (18 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) hmmm. I have a suspicion that most non-integer cubes are impossible because of the way the surfaces can be constructed. Each side of a surface must be constructed out of I + 1/5 J plate units (I and J integer) since we can only make them out (...) (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
