I Thought Cubes Couldn't Connect Diagonally?

[jwnichols21]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This was taken from a source that will be left unnamed.

Look at the 2 columns to the left. Aren't they connected by a corner? I thought this wasn't allowed?

 

[FROGGBUSTER]

This was taken from a source that will be left unnamed.

Look at the 2 columns to the left. Aren't they connected by a corner? I thought this wasn't allowed?

I had one on the REAL DAT that connected diagonally (pretty sure it wasn't an illusion). Cubes CAN connect diagonally, I'm sure of it.

 

[DrRoyal Pains]

They are not actually connected. There is a space between the bottom left row with three cubes and the cube that appears to be connected to the first cube in the bottom left row. What was the answer for cubes with two faces painted? If my theory above is correct, there should be three cubes with two faces painted.

 

[Demps]

I dont think it is connected diagonally.

I see 3 - 3 - 4 - 3 going left to right

 

[DrRoyal Pains]

I dont think it is connected diagonally.

I see 3 - 3 - 4 - 3 going left to right

Same here. To the OP, where is that question from? It looks like CDP.

 

[jwnichols21]

They are not actually connected. There is a space between the bottom left row with three cubes and the cube that appears to be connected to the first cube in the bottom left row. What was the answer for cubes with two faces painted? If my theory above is correct, there should be three cubes with two faces painted.

I don't have access to the answers :[ but I don't understand what you're trying to say. To me, it clearly looks like the left column (1 cube high) has 3 cubes in it. Then the next column (3 cubes high) is connected diagonally to the furthest back cube of column 1. And yes, there is a space between the 1st column and the 3rd column, but how do you account for the connectivity of the 1st and 2nd columns?

Froggbuster, Really? That's discouraging 🙁 Is there not an official rule regarding this?

 

[FROGGBUSTER]

I don't have access to the answers :[ but I don't understand what you're trying to say. To me, it clearly looks like the left column (1 cube high) has 3 cubes in it. Then the next column (3 cubes high) is connected diagonally to the furthest back cube of column 1. And yes, there is a space between the 1st column and the 3rd column, but how do you account for the connectivity of the 1st and 2nd columns?

Froggbuster, Really? That's discouraging 🙁 Is there not an official rule regarding this?

Go with they can connect diagonally on the test, it will serve you well.

 

[UCSD1984]

I don't have access to the answers :[ but I don't understand what you're trying to say. To me, it clearly looks like the left column (1 cube high) has 3 cubes in it. Then the next column (3 cubes high) is connected diagonally to the furthest back cube of column 1. And yes, there is a space between the 1st column and the 3rd column, but how do you account for the connectivity of the 1st and 2nd columns?

Froggbuster, Really? That's discouraging 🙁 Is there not an official rule regarding this?

You may be visualizing this incorrectly. So far everything you said is right. I <think> what you're not doing is realizing that there are 2 cubes in the back right column (the column to the right of the column with 3 cubes).

As far as a general rule of thumb for connectivity, I've seen plenty of problems where cubes are only connected at corners, if that's what you mean by "diagonally."

 

[jwnichols21]

You may be visualizing this incorrectly. So far everything you said is right. I <think> what you're not doing is realizing that there are 2 cubes in the back right column (the column to the right of the column with 3 cubes).

As far as a general rule of thumb for connectivity, I've seen plenty of problems where cubes are only connected at corners, if that's what you mean by "diagonally."

I see those cubes, but they're not exactly related to what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the interaction on the left-hand side, and in the Wicked Sick PAT Tutorial it was discussed that cubes can't be touched at the corner..but I guess they can. Grr

 

[jwnichols21]

They are not actually connected. There is a space between the bottom left row with three cubes and the cube that appears to be connected to the first cube in the bottom left row. What was the answer for cubes with two faces painted? If my theory above is correct, there should be three cubes with two faces painted.

I was able to find the answers and yes it is 3..which affirms that it is in fact touching at the corner.

 

[DrRoyal Pains]

I was able to find the answers and yes it is 3..which affirms that it is in fact touching at the corner.

Alright, good ish.

 

[UCSD1984]

I see those cubes, but they're not exactly related to what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the interaction on the left-hand side, and in the Wicked Sick PAT Tutorial it was discussed that cubes can't be touched at the corner..but I guess they can. Grr

Don't be intimidated by that. You got this dawg!

 

[IamMcLovin]

Yeah I totally know what you mean. I also encountered a question where assuming diagonals, vs the other way around lead to a different analysis/breakdown of the cubes.

In this hypothetical example here: the arrow in green, at first I assumed that there wasn't a placeholder there, but in fact there was one hidden.

The yellow one, depending on if diagonals are assumed or not, would imply it being there or not.

Is there a way we can find out the official ADA rules for this?

 

[UCSD1984]

Yeah I totally know what you mean. I also encountered a question where assuming diagonals, vs the other way around lead to a different analysis/breakdown of the cubes.

In this hypothetical example here: the arrow in green, at first I assumed that there wasn't a placeholder there, but in fact there was one hidden.

The yellow one, depending on if diagonals are assumed or not, would imply it being there or not.

Is there a way we can find out the official ADA rules for this?

That example realllyyyy sucks. At first glance I would've assumed there was a cube there, but I can see how I could end up being confused if I stared at it for too long. Yikes.

 

[jwnichols21]

Yeah I totally know what you mean. I also encountered a question where assuming diagonals, vs the other way around lead to a different analysis/breakdown of the cubes.

In this hypothetical example here: the arrow in green, at first I assumed that there wasn't a placeholder there, but in fact there was one hidden.

The yellow one, depending on if diagonals are assumed or not, would imply it being there or not.

Is there a way we can find out the official ADA rules for this?

Yeah, see this is what I mean. What do we do

 

[DrRoyal Pains]

In this situation I think you have to go with your gut. Personally, when I first saw this, I automatically knew the green arrow corresponded to a cube behind the one blocking it. It doesn't make sense for them not to put one there. Doing this would give two structures instead of one. As with the yellow arrow, I also automatically new this corresponded to a space. If you can't see some type of line or indication of a cube, assume there is not one there (at least that is my method).

 

[IamMcLovin]

In this situation I think you have to go with your gut. Personally, when I first saw this, I automatically knew the green arrow corresponded to a cube behind the one blocking it. It doesn't make sense for them not to put one there. Doing this would give two structures instead of one. As with the yellow arrow, I also automatically new this corresponded to a space. If you can't see some type of line or indication of a cube, assume there is not one there (at least that is my method).

See, this is what I partially assumed too, but in any case, we're only half correct according to their cube analysis. They have it broken down as a cube existing in the green spot, and ALSO a cube existing in the yellow spot.

Assuming diagonals as a possibility, could also lead to assuming no green cube, but a yellow cube connected diagonally to the visible cube which would have been to the left shoulder of the not-present green cube.

Seems like there could be multiple ways to interpret this.

Funky...

 

[DrRoyal Pains]

What the eff. Thats weird. Where is this from?

 

[jwnichols21]

In this situation I think you have to go with your gut. Personally, when I first saw this, I automatically knew the green arrow corresponded to a cube behind the one blocking it. It doesn't make sense for them not to put one there. Doing this would give two structures instead of one. As with the yellow arrow, I also automatically new this corresponded to a space. If you can't see some type of line or indication of a cube, assume there is not one there (at least that is my method).

But see..it shouldn't be like that. There should be a steadfast rule so that during the test we don't have to wonder and end up following our "gut"..my gut tends to lead me astray

 

[UCSD1984]

Hmm...now I'm getting annoyed. At first glance, I'm actually assuming there is a cube where the yellow arrow points, and also where the green arrow points.

Edit: I think I may have a tiny hypothesis as to why they would present a problem like this. If you look at the green arrow, you HAVE to assume there's a block there or else the structure would be disconnected. Simple.

The yellow arrow, however, is pointing to a spot where they want us to assume there is a cube. But if that spot doesn't contribute towards connectivity or the support of a column, for example, then we cannot assume that it's a cube and not an empty space. Make sense?

Basically, we can only assume a cube is occupying an illusion-like position if it adds towards connectivity or towards support. Thaaaaaaaat's my theory. I could be wrong.

Edit again: But then again, since we have seen evidence of diagonal/corner connectivity between cubes, one may also over-confuse themselves by assuming there is a cube where the yellow arrow points, but not one where the green arrow points...in which case a cube would lie where the yellow arrow points and one could assume that it is connected diagonally to the first cube we see appearing in the back to the left of the column.

Don't read what I just wrote, you may punch a cat afterwards.

 

[IamMcLovin]

Hmm...now I'm getting annoyed. At first glance, I'm actually assuming there is a cube where the yellow arrow points, and also where the green arrow points.

Edit: I think I may have a tiny hypothesis as to why they would present a problem like this. If you look at the green arrow, you HAVE to assume there's a block there or else the structure would be disconnected. Simple.

The yellow arrow, however, is pointing to a spot where they want us to assume there is a cube. But if that spot doesn't contribute towards connectivity or the support of a column, for example, then we cannot assume that it's a cube and not an empty space. Make sense?

Basically, we can only assume a cube is occupying an illusion-like position if it adds towards connectivity or towards support. Thaaaaaaaat's my theory. I could be wrong.

Edit again: But then again, since we have seen evidence of diagonal/corner connectivity between cubes, one may also over-confuse themselves by assuming there is a cube where the yellow arrow points, but not one where the green arrow points...in which case a cube would lie where the yellow arrow points and one could assume that it is connected diagonally to the first cube we see appearing in the back to the left of the column.

Don't read what I just wrote, you may punch a cat afterwards.

too late, I read it. Poor lil kitty haha

 

[IamMcLovin]

..but yeah, pretty much all of those scenarios could be the case.

Rethinking this all, I highly doubt the actual exam cube counting will have this much ambiguity. Their structures, based off of ada released exams, seem much more simple.

 

[jwnichols21]

..but yeah, pretty much all of those scenarios could be the case.

Rethinking this all, I highly doubt the actual exam cube counting will have this much ambiguity. Their structures, based off of ada released exams, seem much more simple.

I wish that was the case..

Is it illegal to post ADA 2009 questions on the boards?