is this a cube?

[airstrikee]

---

Members don't see this ad.

i have attached a picture

let me know

thanks

 

[8_man]

It very well could be, but this is a poorly constructed figure. You won't see ambiguous designs like this on the real DAT.

 

[airstrikee]

It very well could be, but this is a poorly constructed figure. You won't see ambiguous designs like this on the real DAT.

thank you

 

[bjamm]

I don't believe that it is

 

[airstrikee]

I don't believe that it is

how come

 

[tyjacobs]

i have attached a picture

let me know

thanks

yeah i dont think theres anyway to figure out if its a cube or not

don't think you'll see something like this on the DAT

 

[DMikes]

It's impossible to say. Don't stress about it. If anything--kudos to your for spotting that mistake! you're observant!

Like @8_man said... You won't see anything ambiguous like this on the DAT. Don't worry about it!

 

[osker246]

If it is not obvious that there is a cube, don't assume one is present. You get no other hints on this image and it is more likely that it is the face of the outside cube.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[DMikes]

If it is not obvious that there is a cube, don't assume one is present. You get no other hints on this image and it is more likely that it is the face of the outside cube.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

That is, literally, impossible to say. Assuming a cube were present in that position, that's exactly what it would look like. It just so happens that that is also exactly what the face on the adjacent cube would look like.

There are no assumptions to be made here. It is literally 100% impossible to say.

 

[osker246]

That is, literally, impossible to say. Assuming a cube were present in that position, that's exactly what it would look like. It just so happens that that is also exactly what the face on the adjacent cube would look like.

There are no assumptions to be made here. It is literally 100% impossible to say.

I totally agree with you. What I'm saying is to never assume one is present unless it is completely obvious. In this case it is not obvious because there's no other information to confirm if there is in fact a cube there or not.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[krcs3865]

I read somewhere in my review material (probably CRACK DAT PAT or Kaplan) that the only implied cubes are ones that provide structural support to other cubes. So if I had to guess, I'd say no. Terrible figure though

 

[8_man]

I read somewhere in my review material (probably CRACK DAT PAT or Kaplan) that the only implied cubes are ones that provide structural support to other cubes. So if I had to guess, I'd say no. Terrible figure though

That rule is for cubes completely out of vision (blindspots and whatnot). The hypothetical cube in this figure can be seen, and so its a toss-up whether its real or not.

 

[FeralisExtremum]

I'd agree that it's impossible to call. Don't worry though, you won't see ambiguity like this on the real DAT.

 

[Dave95]

I'd agree that it's impossible to call. Don't worry though, you won't see ambiguity like this on the real DAT.

Not sure about the American DAT but the Canadian one I wrote had those illusions. And if you ever run into these illusions, you assume there is no cube there unless there is an indication.And I'm pretty sure I ran into a few of these on bootcamp too.

@airstrikee No cube there, kudos to you for posting this tho. Solid question 🙂

 

[MeganDent]

this is an awful cube counting structure! where did you find this? i would not use that resource.

Crack DAT PAT's tutorials and generators have been uber helpful for me, it's taught me cubes that cannot be visualized or appear hidden cannot be assumed they are there: unless they are supporting a column of structures or the cube has to be structurally present to connect the cubes by their bodies and not their edges/points. Hope this helps!

 

[RedRifle31]

I believe that'll count as "2 sides painted." I've seen cubes like that in Bootcamp


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile