Talk:Megaminx

Contradictory?
The article claims that in the 6-coloured version, the visually-identical pairs cannot be physically interchanged. This means that in the 12-coloured version, not every possible arrangement of faces is possible. Therefore the number of possible combinations for the 6-coloured and 12-coloured version should be equal. This is just based on my intuition, so I could be wrong ;) --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the end section about the permutations says that the 6 color and 12 color have different amounts of permutations, but with the same amount of pieces it realistically should be the same. if it is impossible to interchange the 2 colors on a given face, then these numbers should be the same, am I wrong?


 * Obviously there are the same number of pieces, no matter how they are identified. What counts as far as visible permutations are concerned is whether you can tell one state from another. If you can't tell them apart, they count as one permutation.


 * Taking a solved 6-colour puzzle and interchanging 1 pair of identically coloured pieces and then another pair so the puzzle is again in a solved state does not count as a separate permutation since the two states cannot be told apart unless you specifically identify each pair of like-pieces (they don't need to be marked with a pen - keeping track of each one is enough to uniquely identify it). There are no identically-coloured pieces on the 12-colour puzzle so every possible physical permutation counts.


 * To clarify - if I coloured all the faces blue so that there were 30 identically-coloured edge pieces (and 20 corners) there would only be one permutation since rearranging the puzzle would make no discernible difference. I'll remove the Contradiction Template if no-one has any objections. Secret Squïrrel 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inventors
Citation:

"The Magic Dodecahedron has been contemplated for some time. So far I have seen photos or models from: Ben Halpern (USA), Boris Horvat (Yugoslavia), Barry Lockwood (UK) and Miklós Kristóf (Hungary), while Kersten Meier (Germany) sent plans in early 1981. I have heard that Christoph Bandelow and Doctor Moll (Germany) have patents and that Mario Ouellette and Luc Robillard (Canada) have both found mechanisms. The Hungarian version is notable as being in production ... and as having planes closer to the centre so each face has a star pattern."

 "Uwe Mèffert has bought the Halpern and Meier rights, which were  both filed on the same day about a month before Kristóf. However there is an unresolved dispute over the extent of overlap in designs."

Other:

Hungarian Supernova

User talk:Zlajos 8:00, 09 Dec 2007 (CET) [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlajos (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exact number of positions
This number is putting a horizontal scrollbar onto my screen. Does anyone really care to see an exact decimal representation? I'm going to go ahead and get rid of it. The approximation in scientific notation suffices. ~ Booya Bazooka 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed the number itself is not very interesting. A description of how it was arrived at would add some value to the article though.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the other articles have the number spelled out, so I'm trying to be consistent. I've replaced the commas with spaces (proper notation in some countries) so the number can wrap to the next line if it doesn't fit the screen. I'm going to go through the rest of the articles and adjust the format accordingly. I like having the full number there. Maybe I'm just addicted to precision. :) Hellbus (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, replacing commas with spaces makes it more palatable. :-) To me, though, a formula is much more succinct, and just as precise, as a long string of digits. After a certain small number of digits (I'd say somewhere around 10 or 12 digits or so), the human mind is no longer able to fully comprehend the magnitude of the number, and it becomes just a meaningless string of digits. At this point, scientific notation is much better at giving us a feel for the number's magnitude, and a formula explains its exact composition in a more comprehensible form. (Fortunately we're not dealing with gigantic numbers like Graham's number, where this is no longer true.)&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Magic120Cell
i'm a bit busy myself, but they've invented a 4D-megaminx. You can find it here http://www.gravitation3d.com/magic120cell/ - MethoxyRoxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.58.168.42 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've taken some screen shots and am going to put together an article on multidimensional puzzles. For now, it's in my user spacehere if anyone is interested.  Any furthere info welcome.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now in article Magic 120-cell  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of moving pieces, etc.
Recently, 92.236.84.215 made some edits that seem to be questionable: the number of edges in the megaminx is 30, not 60, contrary to this editor's changes, and edges in this article refer to edge pieces which do have two sides. I'm not sure what exactly the editor had in mind, but these changes (and other changes) seem wrong, so I've reverted them. If there are objections, please discuss here and clarify what exactly is meant.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orientable centers
I have a Megaminx and a Supernova. The Supernova has flat stickers so there's no visible center orientation, but the Megaminx has stickers with a ribbed appearance that makes the center orientation visible. Unless I missed my guess, there are 512 possibilities in all. Unlike the Rubik's Cube it's possible to have an odd number of center rotations and still solve the puzzle, since turning a face 72° is an even permutation of the edges as well as the corners. I'd rather have somebody check my math before I add something like this to the article, however.

Also, does anyone know what company produced the Supernova? Hellbus (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

North America results recently added
Do we really need these? Most of the other articles have only the current world record. Unless there is something exceptionally notable about the North America competitions then every other region must be included as well. We don't want to end up with a duplication of the WCA site and all the maintenance nightmare that will entail. This is exactly the sort of thing that external links are for.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the version without them. Hellbus (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

more minxes
4-layered-master kilominx

6-layered-elite kilominx

11-layered-examinx

13-layered-zettaminx

15-layered-yottaminx

17-layered-xennaminx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.3.0 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megaminx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606000042/http://www.chaosottolo.it/se-pensate-che-il-cubo-di-rubik-sia-difficile-non-avete-ancora-visto-megaminx-gigaminx-teraminx-e-petaminx.html to http://www.chaosottolo.it/se-pensate-che-il-cubo-di-rubik-sia-difficile-non-avete-ancora-visto-megaminx-gigaminx-teraminx-e-petaminx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Solution
Don't see any hints for the solution in the article. Is it really obvious, as suggested by the "Solution" section? For me it was not. Useful hints were in the box with the Megaminx, that arrived to me from the People's Republic of China. While this article was completely useless to me. Sincerely yours, 188.69.208.70 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a how-to site. If there is a useful strategy for solving that you can find from a secondary source, put it here. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)