On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:06:23 +0200, JC (Exether) wrote:

> For geometric reasons, it is not possible to build a Rubik's cube of 
> more than 6x6 squares, because you always need the corners to touch the 
> underneath face when turning a face. Even more, 6x6 is the limit but it 
> is very hard to build, and the biggest I saw (and solved :-) was 5x5.
> 
> But nothing prevents you from inventing some magnetic attaches for the 
> cubes so that they can rely on nothing physical.  ;-)
> 
> JC
> 
> Greg Edwards wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:20:31 +0200, Fabien Mosen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Hello,
>>>here's a funny thing I made today, a super-Rubik's-Cube in the
>>>form of a Menger sponge.
>>>
>>>Fabien.
>> 
>> 
>> Something frightening is that I think it would be possible to create such a 
>> cube! @_@
>> 
>> Imagining the billions of moves required to solve one slice... OK, I think 
>> I've regained consciousness...
>>

I was thinking of more of a "cube of cubes" approach where the structure of 
one large cube would be used and each block would actually be its own cube 
in itself. Thinking of it again, I can see a problem in that the centers 

center pieces that hold the whole thing together. Aww well... interesting 
idea anyway!

-- 
light_source#macro G(E)sphere{z+E*y*5e-3.04rotate-z*E*6pigment{rgbt#end{
20*y-10#local n=162;1}#while(n)#local n=n-.3;G(n)x}}G(-n).7}}#end//GregE

Post a reply to this message