This first post will be updated as new definitions are agreed upon. Things that need definitions are sliding and fudging along with others.


Cuboid
Doctrine twisty puzzle with nxmxo dimensions.

V-Cubes
Higher order puzzles that allowed the creation of the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7.

Mefferts
Website offering twisty puzzles and other puzzles.

Custom Puzzles
Puzzles made by a builder, not a factory.

Shapeways
3D printing service that allows rapid prototyping of custom puzzles.

WSF
Wight Strong & Flexible 3D printing material from Shapeways.

Corner Turning
Any puzzle that can rotate pieces around a corner.

Edge Turning
Any puzzle that can rotate pieces around an edge.

Face Turning
Any puzzle that can rotate pieces around a face.

Bandaged
A puzzle that is created by joining together pieces from another puzzle.

Parent Jumbling Puzzle
A jumbling puzzle that cannot be bandaged any more and still exist in a state with all cuts un blocked.

Jumble Factor
The amount of complete unbandages to the parent jumbling puzzle.

Fudging
Making a puzzle have a jumble factor of infinity so that it is non bandaged.

Mechanical Sliding
Moving along a mechanical track. Sometimes into a void.

Sliding Movement
Moving pieces along a path without a central point.

DIY
Do It Yourself

Deep Cut
Any cut that bisects the sphere version of the puzzle.

Jumbeable
A puzzle that can not be unbandaged because an infinite amount of cuts would be needed to extend all cuts.

Rational Jumbling
When rational degrees are used to jumble a puzzle.

Irrational Jumbling
When irrational degrees are used to jumble a puzzle.

Shape-Shifting
The ability of a puzzle to change shape.

Did you mean to do 'post reply' but accidentally click 'new topic'?

Alex

No. I just didn't have time to add already agreed upon definitions.

Even though I bet everyone on this forum know the meaning of it, you could probably add shape-shifting.

Here's Bram's original post with his definition of jumbling. It's nice because he steps you through all the classes leading up to jumbling.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11126&p=171260#p171260

Might be a little off the topic, but I really appreciate that you took the time to make this thread, as I've been slightly confused as to how I should define jumbling, seeing as I didn't (don't) take part in the thread dedicated to jumbling puzzles. And I also think this will be a good place to turn for others in similar situations in the future, since this will be a lot more organized place to get the info you need, rather than to have to search through multiple threads to find what you're looking for.

This definition of deepcut:
viewtopic.php?p=181881#p181881

The definition of doctrinaire.

The first post has been expanded. All things related to puzzles can go in this list.

Not to be funny, but just wondering how this adds to the community at large.

If I understand all these terms as they are without confusion, I'm wondering why we need a thread for this. I will leave it up to higher powers than my self to determine....

Or maybe this is Just Rox on a puzzle high!

Here's something I've been wondering: Is the original pyraminx a face-turning puzzle or a corner-turning puzzle? Based on my understanding of these terms, I could argue either way. Do these definitions (corner-turning, face-turning, edge-turning) even apply to puzzles that do not have faces opposite each other?

Also, what about shape mods? For example, the original 3x3x3 is a face-turning puzzle. But is the master pyramorphix an edge-turning puzzle, or is it still a face-turning puzzle? I would say that it is an edge-turning puzzle, since I think that the definition of what constitutes a face depends on the exterior shape rather than the internal mechanism.

EDIT 2: Pyraminx is corner turning, because the tips rotate, and the pieces connected to the core are located in the corners.

EDIT:I would say that shape-mod definitions depend on the final shape, but that still leaves the question of puzzles line an axis or greenhill cube.

Pyraminx is deep cut so I would consider it both face turning and corner turning.
Thank you for reminding me about this topic. I have some work to do with it

OK, what about Jing's Pyraminx? Face-turning or corner-turning?

If you refer to my edit above, face, because the pieces connected to the core are in the center of a face.(Edit: if i understand the mech correctly)

Skewb is deep cut, but clearly corner-turning. Rubik's 2x2x2 is deep cut, but clearly face-turning.

You're Welcome.

My answer: Yes, it's both.

Good point, but you could make a Jing's Pyraminx by connecting the corners to the core rather than the face centers, and the puzzle would behave in exactly the same manner as the one with face centers connected to the core. Would one puzzle then be face-turning and the other corner-turning, despite the fact that both behave identically? (And you are correct; the face centers are connected to the core on the mass-produced Jing's Pyraminx)

(EDIT: the more I think about this, the more I agree with GuiltyBystander. A puzzle can be both face-turning and corner-turning)

The debate between face and center turning is interesting because it only applies to tetrahedron shaped puzzles. I say that tetrahedron puzzles hould be classified edge-turning, and face/corner turning.

EDIT: Face-turning not egde-turning, DUH!

What about the Fisher's Cube?

cube != tetrahedron

You might say it is a bandaged edge and face turning puzzle but you might then start asking how you would classify (in terms of ....-turning) the ghost cube or even a megaminx ball.

In cases where it is obvious (2x2x2: deep cut face turning cube) the use of ....-turning is fine but when you're talking about defining how a puzzle turns you should use symmetries rather than anything else. That way you could classify a Fisher Cube as having octahedral turning.

What about the term "NIB" on cube4you.com?

I think it means "New in box".

This might be more helpful as a webpage rather than a topic, but there's plenty more definitions that would be useful. I saw a cuber's dictionary once, but I think it was more speedcubing related...

This should be "White Strong & Flexible"

Also, corner-turning is better described as vertex-turning.

I find the definition of "Fudging" confusing.

I think that this needs to be reworded - it sounds like it means, for example, gluing a 3x3x3 corner to a 3x3x3 edge and calling it a puzzle.

Alex

At first I thought "exactly!" but then i realized what you meant. How about "The process of attaching adjacent pieces of a puzzle, to restrict movement on certain axes."

A Fisher cube is a faceturning hexahedron or a cornerturning octahedron or an edgeturning tetrahedron all at once because it has the same axis system.
A helicopter cube is a edgeturning hexahedron, a edgeturning octahedron or a faceturning rhombic dodecahedron all at once because it has the same axis system.
Ignore the shape! The geometry matters. Not according to your own definition stated above. Not according to the definition I linked to, as well.Yesterday I would have said you are correct but this recent discussion convinced me differently. The repeated confusion about "jumbling puzzles" tells me that at least some of the definitions are worth to be on the list.

But isn't the shape part of the geometry? After all, "tetrahedron", "dodecahedron" and the like are geometric terms. And doesn't it seem a little silly to call a Fisher Cube an octahedron when it clearly has six faces rather than eight?

Also, if we ignore the shape, as you suggest, then the terms edge-turning, face-turning and vertex-turning no longer have any meaning, since edge, face, and vertex are all properties of the shape.

I believe Andreas is referring to the mechanical geometry. The external appearance really should make a Ghost Cube different from a Greenhill cube. The geometry that matters is the core, it's arms, and how the pieces interact with the core and each other.


This term should be:
V-Mech
The universal mechanism that allows any desired number layers to be added to a puzzle of any regular polyhedron


It can be better worded:
Bandaged
A puzzle whose external appearance limits otherwise possible turns.

I think Bram got bandaging right the first time. Seriously, his post lays out doctrinaire, bandaged, and jumbling quite nicely.

Correct.

I agree. Seeing as V-Cubes aren't something that could be defined as a puzzle definition compared to what the other definitions listed in this thread are. For instants we have jumbling and its variants and shape-shifting, which leads me to believe that Rentlix's term is more appropriate, seeing as the V-Cube mechanism easily could fit in this category, but V-Cubes as a specific cubing brand only would not. Unless I misunderstood the point of this thread and the definitions in it.

I agree, that's what I thought (same with Meffert's) but I didn't make a point. However, I do not think that specific brand names are at all relevant.

Alex

That's my general opinion as well. But in the case of the V-Cube mechanism, I find it to be relevant, as it is a unique mechanism which is most accurately described as a V-Cube mechanism.

Verdes stopped at 11x11x11 for a reason so "any desired number layers" is a bit broad. Going by the mechanism description of "spherical shells and conical cuts" is perhaps better, but doesn't quite capture features like overhanging centers. Also, few people consider the "click" implementation of even numbered cubes the "Verdes Mech" but it of course is, like it or not.

Dave

You might be right, that part in his definition suggestion is maybe a little too broad if you take into account that Verdes stopped at 11x11x11. But - theoretically, you could add any desired number layers to a polyhedron. But theory and practice are often too vastly different things. But I still think it is close to an acceptable definition, but hey, discussing our thoughts on these kinds of definitions is what this thread is for So I think with a little bit of input from other members, the V-Mech definition is ready to be written as precisely as possible.

The V-mech is definitely not as broad as the definition suggests. It can't make a two-layered dodecahedron (pentultimate), for example.

Then what if it were to say cube instead of polyhedron? Of course I only thought of that when I wrote those posts, but of course you're right. Polyhedron does not only include cubic puzzles. My bad.

Well it's not just for cubes is it? Isn't the Teraminx based on the same mechanism? I don't think that one single word could be used.

Alex

I see your point, but I still think that for the definitions of face-turning, edge-turning, and vertex-turning, the exterior shape matters. This is because the faces, edges, and vertices are all aspects of the exterior shape, and not the mechanism. No one would argue that a Master Pyramorphix is anything other than a tetrahedron (I think). No one would argue that a 3x3x3 cube is anything other than face-turning. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that the Master Pyramorphix is a face-turning puzzle simply based on the fact that it shares a mech with the 3x3x3.

So I disagree with the following statement:
The Fisher Cube is not an octahedron or a tetrahedron. I think it would be more accurate to say that a 6-arm spider mech can be used to create a face-turning hexahedron or a corner-turning octahedron or an edge-turning tetrahedron. But to say that any puzzle with this mech is all of them at once is simply not true.

Modifying the shape does not change the mechanics, but it has the potential to alter the challenge for solving the puzzle. You can create parity errors on a Fisher Cube because four of the face centers (edges on the 3x3x3) can be flipped 180 degrees and still look correct. You don't have to worry about center orientation on a 3x3x3, but you do have to worry about the orientation of the corresponding pieces on a Master Pyramorphix.

Again, my main point is that I think that the definitions of *-turning are not independent of the exterior shape of the puzzle.

I have no idea, seeing as I don't own a Teraminx and have never used one. But if that's the case, not just one word could be used to describe it Funny that this definition is so tricky. Maybe it should say that it can be used in some polyhedra? But then again, that would be just like saying "regular" which is in Rentlix's original post, and that would again mean that it wouldn't be accurate enough. Unless we all agree on what the meaning of a regular polyhedron is.

"Regular Polyhedron" already has a widely accepted definition:

A regular polyhedron is a polyhedron whose faces are congruent regular polygons which are assembled in the same way around each vertex. A regular polygon is a polygon which is equiangular (all angles are equal in measure) and equilateral (all sides have the same length).

Here is a very specific definition for V-mech:

The mechanism invented by Greek Engineer Panagiotis Verdes which allows for creating cubic puzzles of up to 11 layers and which has been successfully adapted for other regular polyhedra.

I know that this mech has been successfully adapted to a dodecahedron (teraminx) and to a tetrahedron (Drewseph's Royal Tetrahedron). That only leaves the octahedron and icosahedron for regular convex polyhedra. I see no reason why this mech would not work for these two, and it may also work for some irregular polyhedra. That's why my definition focuses on what has been done rather than what could be done.

I would never argue that a Mastermorphix has the shape of a tetrahedron. Classifying it as a "faceturning hexahedron" is just the short form of "puzzle with the axis system of the faceturning hexahedron".
I hope I have never used the term x-turning alone. As far as I know I have always included the term hexahedron (or other solids) so the underlying axis system was made clear.

According to the definitions written down in the first post the Fisher cube is an edgeturning and a faceturning puzzle. Difficult enough for a puzzle like the Fisher cube. I own two types of "cornerturning rhombic dodecahedrons" (according to your definition, I hope) but both have different axis systems. And how to describe the Square Pyramid, viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11580 ?
I plead for ignoring the shape and include all possible shapes mods.

That doesn't describe a mechanism though, just a set of puzzles that use it. What makes you include some puzzles in this and exclude others? Presumably that is the description of the mechanism.

What I offered above (spherical shells, conical cuts and overhanging centers) is a pretty decent description that covers everything in that list and more that, if created, would certainly be considered to use the Verdes mechanism. These are the things that you can also use to rule out other mechanisms: The Rubik's and EastSheen 5x5x5 differ from the Verdes in that they don't have these features. Neither does the original TBTTyler v1 Gigaminx.

Dave

You have a point that examples don't define something, but it is also common for dictionaries to include examples to clarify definitions (and they don't include all possible examples). That's all I was trying to do. I guess if we absolutely wanted the most technically accurate definition of the Verdes mech, it would be a link to the patent.


To me, "puzzle with the axis system of the faceturning hexahedron" is NOT the same as saying that a puzzle IS a "faceturning hexahedron". You say it is shorthand. I say it is misleading, or at least confusing.

As for a definition based on a mechanism that includes all possible shape mods, you know that any list that claims "all possible" will never be complete.

Putting two and two together. A list of all possible shape mods is never going to be complete, but as you have stated, it is common to use just some examples to clarify. The axis system is what Andreas is talking about, but external shape is what you're talking about. The way Andreas is defining the terms, the arms of the core and how they interact with the puzzle is what makes the puzzle.

Tell me this is the same thing as this.

Maybe we should classify the puzzle, regardless of external shape, by its japp's sphere, but with different notation:
# of axes,
axis1: location (degrees from 0, on plane yz, degrees from 0, on plane xz,degrees from 0, on plane xy)(basically, on a 333, the U center is yz=0 xz=0 xy=origin, F center is yz=origin xz=-90 xy=180 and R center is yz=90 xz=origin xy=90), Arc measure(degrees)(for a 333, all axis are at a 70 degree angle), from the axis to the cut.
axis2:ditto
Etc., for all axis.