Talk:Curiosity: What's Inside the Cube?

Size
Poppykin (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is a pretty ridiculous problem but the corner and edge cubelets do not take away from the cubelets on the other faces, to re-enforce this i took screenshots to prove that edges don't affect the other faces. here are the screenshots.

http://i.imgur.com/lYWBR.png http://i.imgur.com/NUZ1M.png

maybe its a bug, but another thing to add to this is you can't see the cubelets on other faces either.


 * I agree. The formula on the page gives a calculation for an actual cube, but the Curiosity cube functionally has six independent faces, so the number of cubes will be higher.

I just took the most actual statistics (layer 1, remaining 24.843.245, destroyed 75.770.907) and with that I calculated the length of his sides as 4.096.

This leads to a volume of 68.719.476.736 cubelets.

OAndreas (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can confirm this with pictures from here: http://www.androidentity.com/curiosity-whats-inside-the-cube-stats-to-keep-you-tapping. The log there is for the first two layers, and if you add the total destroyed with the remaining on this layer (the second layer) you get exactly the amount for a first layer of width 4096 and a second layer of width 4094. I also checked the remaining total on layer 11 shortly after it became editable, and it was a bit 99,584,856, a little under the 99,633,752 value computed for that layer (with a width of 4076). I have a pic of this value, but I'm not sure where to upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.140.131 (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also found this http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/06/curiosity-puts-up-huge-launch-numbers which has a picture showing the first layer as having 46,240,921 + 54,373,231 = 100,614,152 which is exactly 4096^3 - 4094^3, meaning the first layer had a width of 4096 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.140.131 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that the length of the sides of the Curiosity Cube would be even. That means that the final cube will have side length 2: there'll be 8 last cubelets ... and ... nothing ... inside 87.231.48.50 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)HS


 * Sorry for the off-topic talk. But the reason that is the case is to demonstrate that Molyneux isn't goint to let us get down to the final cube. He's going to stop it earlier somewhere. We know there will be a minimum of 60 layers because layer 60 is dedicated to indie gamers; it will probably go a lot longer than that because Molyneux wants it to last a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.146.15 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The screenshots and stats cited above indeed leave no doubt as to the fact that the initial cube had side length 4.096. However, the screenshots and stats at this moment (86th layer) leave equally little doubt that the current cube is a descendent of an initial cube of edge length 4.097. Seems like Molyneux has changed his mind about the cube theoretically ending in a void... Details and numbers can be found here: http://www.harsmedia.com/SoundBlog/Archief/00789.php#geeky Harswiki (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Layers section
The 'layers' section of this article is totally unnecessary and should be removed--just as a typical video game article doesn't have a list of every single level, the list of layers doesn't belong here. A short description talking about how each layer has a different theme with a couple examples would be much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.128.20 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But this is not a "normal" videogame. While the majority of the videogames are always there and you can play them when you want, there's no need of "levels" list as you will have to play it if you want to know them. But with Curiosity it's different: the game will be played only 1 time and never be played again, so there has to be constance of every "level" or layer for the history of the game.
 * --95.21.2.121 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for such information. Whether or not the game is a 'one-time' event has no bearing on the subject. Feel free to link to an external source that documents the history of the game.


 * There doesn't seem to be a reliable external source as things have been moving very fast. And I agree that there should be a history of the layers, maybe not exactly in this format, but removing it completely does not seem right, as I find it a useful log to satisfy my curiosity about what layers I missed while logged out. We should keep it at least until we have a more reliable archive somewhere else (like a curiosity game wiki) which might even start building using this info here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.113.44 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, removing it completely DOES seem 'right' because it does not fit the content guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place for a temporary log of data awaiting a permanent home. Use notepad, create a wikia page, or used a shared document, or any of the other thousands of ways to record information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.45.192 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps make it its own article, 'List of Curiosity - What's Inside the Cube Layers'? Each layer is important, and I agree that they should be cataloged, but perhaps we should do it outside of the main article. Think of it like List of Lost episodes or List of World War II battles. --174.22.210.131 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. All in all, there will probably be 2048 layers, which would make us create a table with 2048 rows in the main article. Let's transfer this section to a "List of [...]" article. --Subsonic17 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Working on it now. (I'm the guy who suggested it two posts up, forgot to sign in.) The AfC entry is up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube? layers —Scotto1211 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that this information should definitely be kept (it's interesting, and I haven't found anything very similar). I do agree that it would be best if the table was moved to List of Curiosity - What's Inside the Cube? layers, though. The "layers" section should probably be kept on this page, but it should just have a link to the "main" article. Alphius (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the layers section is moved, I think it would be a great idea if like the past ten or so latest layers were on the main page. As the game progresses and more layers go by each day this might become difficult to be current, but I think it would be fun to see the latest activity on the cube. --Lucky Potatoe (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

May someone add: Layer 111, 18 Dec 2012, Brownish Orange/Rusty Orange? Thanks --Jmb1982 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Layer 112, 18 Dec 2012, Pages from a physics textbook- Newton laws etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.197.227 (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this page is locked, I'm going to add the layers here if anyone chooses to copy and paste them onto this page. So far, I have:

More will come. 46.4.48.149 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Formulas
This article is getting a bit mad. Today we find a rather pompous section of formulas to calculate the number of cubelets on an edge, on a side, on a layer, given the number of the layer. It is littered with equation symbols that only a fraction of readers will understand. It all ends in the calculation of the total number of cubelets. What an achievement! Only utterly useless, since it is completely clear from public statements by the cube developers, that the number of layers to clear is "undisclosed", which basically means they can choose and change it any way they want. Heck, they even could decide that the cubelets in the inner layers are smaller! For example: "To extend the fun everybody is having, cubelets on layer 100 will cover four cubelets each on the next layer." Of course they will not. My point is: Math is great. Don't misuse it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.198.132 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm the creator of the section that you mentioned above. True, not everybody (but rather few) will visit the article in order to gain experience about the mathematics behind this game, but the concept of mutlidimensional cubes surrounding each other like boxes is mathematically quite interesting and was a lot of fun to look at. There are enough readers who seem to care about the mathematics, since the validity of these calculations was widely discussed (even in the article itself!). This is why I wrote this section in the first place: to bring some clarity to those readers. Also, it does not end in the total number of cubelets; this actually takes place in the beginning of the section. That's why the article is called "Formulas" and not "Calculating the total number of cubelets". This section should be understood as a collection of formulas to use when asking yourself about various numbers based on the cube. It is not a step-by-step calculation of the total cubelets and I'd like to put lots of emphasis on that. Also, as an encyclopedia, our task is not to claim anything as given - but to explain it in a way everybody can be able to follow. Due to this fact, merely putting up a table without any background information just listing all of these numbers would clearly be the wrong way to explain the game mathematics to the public eye, don't you think? And as for the number of layers being described as "undisclosed", let's just consider this information as "useful" and "realistic" as the description of what's really inside the cube ("life-changingly amazing by any definition" - P. Molyneux). At least, if we don't know any better yet (that is: they might do that, but they might as well not). --Subsonic17 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Subsonic. I do agree that this is interesting info for many Curiosity players. But please do verify the terminology, the formulas and numbers ... In the table, the numbers $$z_n$$ are the total numbers of cubelets at the beginning of a layer, which is just $${e_n}^3$$, so the same as your $$v_n$$. (There is, however an error in the table for layer 2045, where $$c_n$$ should be 296 (not 512), and $$z_n$$ should be equal to 8^3 = 512). Or do you mean something else by $$z_n$$? In your summation formulas you use n both as the number of a layer, and as a summation index. I can only make sense of this, if I re-write it as $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} v_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} v_i = \sum_{i=n}^{2048} v_i$$. But this is the sum of the available cubelets for the current (n-th) cube, and of the available cubelets for all stages yet to come. For the one but last stage (n=2047), e.g., the result is 64 + 8 = 72. As far as I can see, that is not a very insightful number.Harswiki (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Harswiki. I double-checked and it seems that you're indeed right about this latter issue (result not making sense). If, however, instead of some kind of volume, we subtract the summation of every solved layer (denoted as $$c_n$$ from the total amount of cubelets which there were in the beginning of the game, it works perfectly fine (I saw it matching the values for n=2048 (result: 0 cubelets left) and for n=2047 (result: 8 cubelets left). And yes, using n for both my layer number and the summation index was a little clumsy; thank you very much for pointing this out. As far as I can tell, the following formula seems to work just fine: $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} c_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i$$ Please check out Wolfram Alpha on this linkand change the last value n (which is the cube layer you're in) to get the number of cubelets left to be destroyed at the beginning of any layer n to get to the next layer n+1 (that's what $$z_n$$ is supposed to describe). However, I didn't get it to work with the simplified summation form of $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} v_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} v_i = \sum_{i=n}^{2048} v_i$$ or respectively  $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} c_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i = \sum_{i=n}^{2048} c_i$$  that you came up with; does the right side really equal the left side? I'll replace the formula on the page by my "extended" formula and check any value in the table now. If you find a working way to simplify it, please feel free to correct me. Kindest regards! :) --Subsonic17 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit: When checking the table for mistakes, I noticed the following: $$z_{2045} = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} c_i - \sum_{i=1}^{2045-1} c_i = 512$$, so there would be 512 cubelets left. Layer #2045 suggests that one edge consists of $$e_{2045}=2^{12}-2(2045-1)=2^{12}-4088=8$$ cubelets; this is correct and is also being stated in the table. This means, there are only 8x8x8=512 cubelets left. Since the outer layer contains 512 cubelets and the cube itself is formed of 512 cubelets, something can't be right over here. This wouldn't allow that there could be any further inner layer. Any suggestions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subsonic17 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Subsonic. The layer 2045 line in the table should read: 2,045 | 8 | 64 | 296 | 512 ... (I think you can just go ahead and correct it.) In each line $$e_n$$ is the length of an edge, $$f_n$$ is the number of cubelets per face ($$f_n (= e_n^2)$$), $$c_n$$ is the total number of outer cubelets (this is the number of cubelets to be destroyed in order to get to the next layer), and $$z_n (= e_n^3)$$ is the total number of cubelets in the cube with edge-length $$e_n$$ (the $$z_n$$ in the table is the same as what you call $$v_n$$; so I suggest to replace the $$z_n$$ in the table with $$v_n$$; also because 'v' suggests 'volume', which is what it is...) Checking the numbers in the table can be done by, e.g., checking the equalities: $$f_n = e_n^2 ; z_n = e_n^3; c_n = z_n - z_{n+1}$$. As to the summations: yes, the formula $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} c_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i$$ is correct. This is the sum of all the still to be destroyed layers, layer by layer. But it's much simpler to write $$z_n = e_n^3$$, which is the total number of cubelets left; that, of course is the same. And about the summation formulas in general: if you write: $$\sum_{i=1}^{2048} something- \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} something$$, you subtract the sum of the first n-1 terms (this is the second sum) from the (first) sum of 2048 terms. So what is left is $$\sum_{i=n}^{2048} something$$. That's why $$\sum_{i=1}^{2048} something- \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} something = \sum_{i=n}^{2048} something$$, whatever the 'something' is. So, indeed, $$z_n = \sum_{i=1}^{2048} c_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i = \sum_{i=n}^{2048} c_i$$. But it is also just equal to $$e_n^3$$. Harswiki (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * PS.: and of course, if this cube logic is followed through to the final stage, at the end, the final cube = the final layers to be destroyed, and there's nothing left. But, as already pointed out, the cube logic is most probably not the 'logic of the game', which - as is everybody's guess - will bring the game to an end (long) before this stage of 'ultimate annihilation' will be reached. Personally, though, I would love it, if the game indeed were to end in this final 'void' ... That's the way I would have done it. But then, well, I'm not Peter M... I think ;-) Harswiki (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed description, I just corrected the table value, resorted and renamed a column and added two new interesting columns to the table. Also, I've added the simplified version of the summation formula which I luckily fully understand by now; thanks for explaining! Next, we might also add a section in "Game mathematics" named "Streaks" or something like that, because the combo system is quite interesting as well. But now it's off to bed with me, first. Good night, everybody. --Subsonic17 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote a lengthy article on the cube, which includes an overview of the cleanest possible versions of the formulas. If any formulas are given on this Wikipedia page, I think it should be those : http://www.harsmedia.com/SoundBlog/Archief/00789.php#formulas Notice that there is strong evidence (see the same article, and my remark in the 'Size' section above) that meanwhile the initial size of the cube has changed. The current number of cubelets in layers correspond to those of an initial cube of length 4.097, not 4.096 ! Harswiki (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Math section
Currently, this section is a blatant WP:SYNTH - "it's an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are **directly related** to the topic of the section, and directly support the material being presented." So I've commented out the section for now. If you disagree, feel free to discuss it here. Laurent (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ?? 'analysis or synthesis of published ??? material' ... Not at all. Just a simple (but definitely original) calculation showing what happens to the size/volume of the cube while the game progresses. The calculation starts from the cube's initial dimensions, for which appropriate sources are cited. The rest is just a bit of math; pretty simple math, in case you're used to that sort of thing. The bulk of the game players, though, will not be in the habit to do this sort of calculation for breakfast. But many of them appear to be pretty interested in the information. For the moment, his Wikipedia article has been the only place where this info could be found. Whether or not this is the right place to display it, well, I will leave that up to others to quarrel about. (Just saw that someone did a partial undo. Was not me. I just talk. I do not want to touch the article. I'm a math guy, not a game specialist.) Harswiki (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's "definitely original", it is enough to remove it from the article, we don't include original research on Wikipedia, even if interesting. In fact, if it really is interesting, you should be able to send the story to a good tech website or blog and have them publish it. Once they do, we can have the information here too. Please have a look at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for more info. Laurent (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a lot of it is basically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact that it is "original" calculation (as noted above) is enough to make it unsuitable. Verifiability and no original research are 2 of 3 core content policies. Attached sources do not contain math used in the article. Also, just because it is math does not mean it gets less scrutiny than any other content. And the WP:BURDEN of proof is with the editor adding and restoring the content. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the Math section has become something of a flasher on this page. If it is going to stay in, you should use the far less 'pompous' formulas that can be referenced via the detailed article I wrote about the cube. The relevant parts are http://www.harsmedia.com/SoundBlog/Archief/00789.php#formulas and http://www.harsmedia.com/SoundBlog/Archief/00789.php#geeky . The 'cube math' is really no more than a bit of advanced 'counting' and doesn't need the somewhat intimidating summation formulas that are given in this section now. However, as already said in 'Size' and 'Formulas' above, it seems that meanwhile the edge-length of the initial cube no longer is 4.096, but 4.097 ... Peter M. and 22Cans of course can do whatever they want to their cube. It's a game, it's fun, not science ;-) Harswiki (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * PS.: If agreement can be reached, and you'd like to keep a short 'math section', I'll be happy to re-write the current one in a more factual, succint way. Harswiki (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete from article
Can someone please delete the not encyclopedian sentence "Where is the Math?" From the article? I am not able to, because the article is half-closed. --89.183.22.61 (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Estimated Complete Date
So I have noticed the estimated complete date is a hot topic that is constantly added and deleted from the page. Is there a reason why it is constantly removed?(i am completely new to this wiki thing)Bradvanoosten (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Brad, the people actively editing this page (not me, I'm only observing) disagree on whether or not the calculations related to the cube's size, including the estimations on the possible 'end of the game', should be part of it. That's why these sections are continuously being removed, then put back in again, etc. The calculations are based on a 'theoretical' cube, and data derived from the stats of the game. As of course the 'real cube' is controlled by the designers at 22Cans, these data may (and probably do) change while the game develops. E.g., there is 'statistical evidence' that somewhere over the six or so weeks of its running, the size of the 'initial cube' was modified from one with edge length 4096 to one with edge length 4097. This will hardly influence the estimation of the max running time of the game, but the estimation that (sometimes) can be found on the WIkipedia page is an estimation of the time it would take, at the current rate of cubelet destruction, to destroy all of the cube (that estimation is some time late summer 2013). Most 'specialists', however, are convinced that the game will be brought to an end by 22Cans quite some time before. [ If you're interested in the 'cubic numerology', have a look at http://www.harsmedia.com/SoundBlog/Archief/00789.php#geeky ] Harswiki (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wired article is misquoted
In the article it says that Wired wrote "That its contents will have proven to be as world-altering as Molyneux promised." This is incorrect because it is taken out of context. What they really wrote would be more accurately quoted as "It's possible [...] that its contents will have proven to be as world-altering as Molyneux promised. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to think that’s not what’s going to happen."

Can someone make this change? Or you could just delete this quote, but make sure the sentences following this quote are still attributed to the Wired article. I'd do it, but the article is semi-protected. Braneof (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Cube.webp

Controversy
After Brian Henderson won the game, he was given a contract that would give him only 1% of the revenue from godus, and the contract said that 22Cans didn’t necessarily had to deliver on their promise, as of today he has not received anything the contract said he would get, and in an interview with eurogamer he said he didn’t really care that much, and 22Cans have simply given up on godus, 145.224.65.254 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Migration proposal
I've noticed the article title uses a colon while the article uses an en dash. Other articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere use either, but the 22cans website uses the dash. Does anyone have evidence that the colon was used officially anywhere? If not, I'd like to propose migrating the article from "Curiosity: What's Inside the Cube?" to "Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube?". --  Primium  (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)