Cube Counting Sorcery

[mrdeez]

Aren't we not supposed to assume hidden cubes unless they are supporting other cubes? Look at this.



I was going about my business, counted em up, and...



WHAT?! Isn't this against the rules? It isn't supporting any other cubes, so we assume there is not a cube there, right? Am I losing my mind?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[caffeine jitters]

This is a really poor question... it can EASILY go either way (cube there / cube not there)

Where did you find this example?

 

[mrdeez]

This is a really poor question... it can EASILY go either way (cube there / cube not there)

Where did you find this example?

Really? I'm glad I'm not the only one. This was in Crack DAT PAT. The 10 PAT test version, I forgot the name of the package. I just started with my PAT studying so if there are more realistic options that won't waste my time let me know.

 

[FeralisExtremum]

In cube counting, all cubes must be connected by their faces - not their vertices. Therefore, the only way for the above structure to be valid would be if you assumed that there was a cube there. This question is tricky visually (the real DAT rarely is in this section), but it does fall within the rules.

 

[DAT Destroyer]

In cube counting, all cubes must be connected by their faces - not their vertices. Therefore, the only way for the above structure to be valid would be if you assumed that there was a cube there. This question is tricky visually (the real DAT rarely is in this section), but it does fall within the rules.

I agree, it does fall within the rules..

 

[caffeine jitters]

hrm. I did not know about that rule for this section... that would have helped a few weeks ago lol

 

[DAT Destroyer]

CaffeineJitters, you still knocked it out of the ball park, congratulations again on those great scores!

Nancy

 

[Wererew]

In cube counting, all cubes must be connected by their faces - not their vertices. Therefore, the only way for the above structure to be valid would be if you assumed that there was a cube there. This question is tricky visually (the real DAT rarely is in this section), but it does fall within the rules.

But wouldnt it still be correct by not counting it? 😵

 

[FeralisExtremum]

But wouldnt it still be correct by not counting it? 😵

No, because if you assumed there was no cube there, then the right set of cubes would only be attached by a single vertices at the section I've circle below in red:

 

[Wererew]

Very helpful thanks!!

 

[mrdeez]

In cube counting, all cubes must be connected by their faces - not their vertices. Therefore, the only way for the above structure to be valid would be if you assumed that there was a cube there. This question is tricky visually (the real DAT rarely is in this section), but it does fall within the rules.

This explains a lot, thank you. What you said about the real DAT definitely eases my mind a bit.