5D Rubik's Cube

[T0rajir0u]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. It makes you look like a spectacular dumbass.

wut else is the critical thinking forum 4

[FFR4EVA_00]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Wow, you just devoted 3 full posts towards me. Take a look at the posts behind mine excluding the OP, and then decide again whether or not I've debased or killed the thread. Instead, I've boosted its post count and thus viewings while staying on topic and not resorting to insults and flame war. Just think how many more people would now wish to see the 5-d cube after watching a belligerent arduously claim that 5 dimensions cannot be represented on screen; now many more would wish to see if it is real or not. Not to mention that the responses directed towards me delved deep into the nature of physical and geometrical dimensions and did, in fact, contribute to the mathematical and higher-level of thought evident in this thread. The only instance of true swaying from the topic is appearing with the lock requests you are buttressing and this post countering those requests. I say we keep the thread going and continue talking about the nature of the puzzle the website has to offer.

k w/e

Anyway, I downloaded it to see how easy or hard it is to manipulate it. And, it proves to be quite simple. However, the puzzles seem to be quite hellish.

[stlunatic0124]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Wow, you just devoted 3 full posts towards me. Take a look at the posts behind mine excluding the OP, and then decide again whether or not I've debased or killed the thread. Instead, I've boosted its post count and thus viewings while staying on topic and not resorting to insults and flame war. Just think how many more people would now wish to see the 5-d cube after watching a belligerent arduously claim that 5 dimensions cannot be represented on screen; now many more would wish to see if it is real or not. Not to mention that the responses directed towards me delved deep into the nature of physical and geometrical dimensions and did, in fact, contribute to the mathematical and higher-level of thought evident in this thread. The only instance of true swaying from the topic is appearing with the lock requests you are buttressing and this post countering those requests. I say we keep the thread going and continue talking about the nature of the puzzle the website has to offer.

You should like you're reading from a textbook. Stop.

[trillobyite]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. It makes you look like a spectacular dumbass.

You would have a great point if the words I used weren't properly placed or suited for the post, but they were. I'm not trying to be conceited or condescending, but assaulting me for bringing up legitimate points, citing my style of typing as evidence of your claims, makes you look like the "spectacular dumbass".

You should like you're reading from a textbook. Stop.

When I speak in real life I neglect to use the same level of vocabulary, but when I type, I naturally end up using those words. I'm sorry if it is offensive but I cannot help it.

k w/e
Anyway, I downloaded it to see how easy or hard it is to manipulate it. And, it proves to be quite simple. However, the puzzles seem to be quite hellish.

I've downloaded it, but whenever I try to run the program an error message pops up claiming that I do not have "NET Framework". I'm not savvy with this type of terminology. Do you know where I can find the program, or whether it even is a program? JKPolk do you know either?

[sertman]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0856EACB-4362-4B0D-8EDD-AAB15C5E04F5&displaylang=en

[flamingspinach]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

You would have a great point if the words I used weren't properly placed or suited for the post, but they were. I'm not trying to be conceited or condescending, but assaulting me for bringing up legitimate points, citing my style of typing as evidence of your claims, makes you look like the "spectacular dumbass".

OHHHH I'M SORRY TRILLOBYITE, YOU REALLY DO KNOW YOUR ENGLISH, DON'T YOU? I didn't think I'd actually have to spell this out for you, but here I will lay it down:

Wow, you just devoted 3 full posts towards me.

You can't "devote" something "towards" something else. You "devote" things "to" other things.

Take a look at the posts behind mine excluding the OP, and then decide again whether or not I've debased or killed the thread.

"debase" is rooted in "base" as in "not genuine", not "base" as in "foundation", so "debase" doesn't mean "unseat" or "go off-topic", but rather "cheapen", which you obviously don't seem to comprehend properly.

Instead, I've boosted its post count and thus viewings while staying on topic and not resorting to insults and flame war.

"thus" separates clauses, not phrases. Your usage of it is incorrect. Instead try "Instead, I've boosted its post count and thus boosted its viewings".

Just think how many more people would now wish to see the 5-d cube after watching a belligerent arduously claim that 5 dimensions cannot be represented on screen; now many more would wish to see if it is real or not.

"belligerent arduously claim" isn't even a well-formed noun phrase. Hell, even if you meant "arduously belligerent", that's a ridiculous turn of phrase, since "arduously" means "with great difficulty or laboriousness" and "belligerent" means "intended to wage or currently waging war" (though it is often used metaphorically). So, uh... your "claim" is laboriously warlike. RIGHT.

Also note that your semicolon use is totally inappropriate and destroys any fluency that your sentence once possessed. Then again, your use of the conditional tense makes the whole thing stilted anyway.

Not to mention that the responses directed towards me delved deep into the nature of physical and geometrical dimensions and did, in fact, contribute to the mathematical and higher-level of thought evident in this thread.

Good job using a dependent clause as a full sentence. You fail. Try taking the "not to mention that" off of the beginning. I seriously doubt you meant "evident" as "clearly visible", and were rather trying to say something such as "present" i.e. "existent". Then again, who knows? You make little enough sense anyway that I wouldn't be surprised.

The only instance of true swaying from the topic is appearing with the lock requests you are buttressing and this post countering those requests.

Thank you for awkwardly using a gerund phrase as a noun (viz. "swaying from the topic"). Use of the present progressive is horrible in this case, not to mention that you should have used "in" instead of "with". "lock requests" is an ambiguous noun conflation. "buttressing" does not mean "leveraging", no matter how hard you try to use it as such - it means "to support". You also need a duplicate (if dubious) "with" to attend "post" in order to compound the phrase with "and" in order to be most grammatically correct.

I say we keep the thread going and continue talking about the nature of the puzzle the website has to offer.

I think anyone with a brain would realize that this topic is about the puzzle, not the website. The link to the website was provided to facilitate the retrieval of said puzzle. Furthermore, the website is not even technically "offering" the puzzle.

When I speak in real life I neglect to use the same level of vocabulary, but when I type, I naturally end up using those words. I'm sorry if it is offensive but I cannot help it.

I see! So you sound like a spectacular dumbass in real life as well! Excellent! Then again it's not that surprising, considering you can't even spell "trilobite".

You lose! Good day, sir!

-fs

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

"Where do I put the pieces?"

"DON'T YOU MEAN 'WHEN'?"

GOD, where is that from? I can't remember. Was it Go?

[T0rajir0u]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

"belligerent arduously claim" isn't even a well-formed noun phrase.

It's not supposed to be. "Belligerent" is being used as a noun (and "claim" as a verb), ergo, one who acts belligerently towards others. His use of "arduously" to modify "claim" is a little strange, but there isn't anything grammatically wrong with it, so I didn't nitpick that.

[laughsitup2005]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Hey. Chill out ya'll. We don't need another freaking war on this forum. That is what the garbage bin is for.

[trillobyite]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Thanks man, I'll check it out soon!

You can't "devote" something "towards" something else. You "devote" things "to" other things.

Touche.

"debase" is rooted in "base" as in "not genuine", not "base" as in "foundation", so "debase" doesn't mean "unseat" or "go off-topic", but rather "cheapen", which you obviously don't seem to comprehend properly.

Debase, by dictionary definiton, means to lower the quality of, cheapen, or downright ruin over time. Someone claimed that I killed the thread, not just that it allegedly went off-topic, and to "kill" a thread is to lower its quality, and thus debase it.

"thus" separates clauses, not phrases. Your usage of it is incorrect. Instead try "Instead, I've boosted its post count and thus boosted its viewings".

While I did make a mistake, it would be grammatically proper if the sentence had read, "I've boosted its post count, and thus viewings, while staying on topic and not resorting to insults and flame war".

"belligerent arduously claim" isn't even a well-formed noun phrase. Hell, even if you meant "arduously belligerent", that's a ridiculous turn of phrase, since "arduously" means "with great difficulty or laboriousness" and "belligerent" means "intended to wage or currently waging war" (though it is often used metaphorically). So, uh... your "claim" is laboriously warlike. RIGHT.

Also note that your semicolon use is totally inappropriate and destroys any fluency that your sentence once possessed. Then again, your use of the conditional tense makes the whole thing stilted anyway.

Arduously means requiring effort, and I did use effort to bring up debateable points. Belligerent refers to one who is hostile and does not necessarily refer to a nation at war. I was showing hostility toward the website's claims and thus was a belligerent. "A belligerent arduously claim" thus exhibits a proper usage of terms, with a noun, adverb, and verb in proper structure. The semicolon did not ruin the flow of the sentence whatsoever, I simply needed to add a comma after the word "now."

Good job using a dependent clause as a full sentence. You fail. Try taking the "not to mention that" off of the beginning. I seriously doubt you meant "evident" as "clearly visible", and were rather trying to say something such as "present" i.e. "existent". Then again, who knows? You make little enough sense anyway that I wouldn't be surprised.

You are right in that I should not have created a sentence out of a dependent clause. I did intend evident to mean "clearly visible". Nevertheless, the meaning of the sentence was evident and if the message it carried actually confused you, then you lack interpreting skills.

Thank you for awkwardly using a gerund phrase as a noun (viz. "swaying from the topic"). Use of the present progressive is horrible in this case, not to mention that you should have used "in" instead of "with". "lock requests" is an ambiguous noun conflation. "buttressing" does not mean "leveraging", no matter how hard you try to use it as such - it means "to support". You also need a duplicate (if dubious) "with" to attend "post" in order to compound the phrase with "and" in order to be most grammatically correct.

You are very welcome for the awkward gerund phrase . A lock request is a common internet expression, and thus it did not need to conform to the same standard of writing in a term paper or school assignment. Buttress means to prop up, support, or reinforce, and the person in question was supporting the lock requests. Leveraging can mean to improve or enhance, and he wasn't enhancing nor improving lock requests.

I think anyone with a brain would realize that this topic is about the puzzle, not the website. The link to the website was provided to facilitate the retrieval of said puzzle. Furthermore, the website is not even technically "offering" the puzzle.

Never did I imply that the topic of this thread was the website. Moreover, the use of the term "offering" contains an elemnt of personification and cannot be considered a true grammatical error. Even newspapers and erudite essays will use such phrases.

I see! So you sound like a spectacular dumbass in real life as well! Excellent! Then again it's not that surprising, considering you can't even spell "trilobite".

You lose! Good day, sir!

I know exactly what a trilobite is, and my screen name was derived from the inspiration the organism provided me. I purposelly added in the extra "l" and "y," and thus your attempts at claiming that I lack a basic knowledge of spelling is proved false. I have a wide variety of friends in real life and all appear content with my way of speaking, though with the disrespecting, obsessive, bitter attitude you portray in your post I am beginning to understand that you have chosen to displace your daily anger on me. There are also 4 points I feel I should bring up. First of all, I am having a load of fun replying to you and I am not taking any of your criticism seriously at all. Secondly, you have failed to address the actual points I was bringing up in my previous post and chose instead to focus on semantics and grammatical mistakes. Thirdly, in your previous post, you challenged my use of words, claiming that I did not know the meaning of them, but in this post focused primarily on grammatical errors; I replied to most of your attacks on word usage. Finally, I acknowledge that this entire post is filled with grammar mistakes. You wish to know why? Because this is the internet, and I honestly could not care less about my use or your use of grammar. If you reply to this post by citing grammatical errors again I'll simply ignore the post.

Edit: laughsitup2005, I will refrain from continuing this war even if flamingspinach makes a reply. You are right and I don't want to continue impeding this forum.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

GOD, where is that from? I can't remember. Was it Go?

YOUR 2-D, LINEAR GO BORES ME TO TEARS

(WELL IT WOULD IF I HAD TEAR DUCTS)

[flamingspinach]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

(text)

That was remarkably more intelligent than your last post. Good job. I admit I didn't see "belligerent" as a noun at all, whoops - guess I read it wrong, but that is a rather awkward construction. By leverage, I meant "bring to bear". I still don't see how "debase" can apply, but I guess as long as you know what you're saying (which I believe now that you took the time to address my rant), I'll accept it. "thus" still doesn't work that way - it cannot connect phrases, it must connect clauses. As for the rest, you've adequately explained your intent in using them, notwithstanding the sundry grammar errors which I suppose anyone makes at times. In any case your last post was far more coherent than the one which I picked apart, and as a result my respect for you as a poster in CT has risen above a threshold that would cause me to want to argue about grammar and style with you

Still, though, you must admit that "I was testing to see how long it would take until I would be exposed for the fraud that I am knowing absolutely nothing about dimensions that is relevent to the thread. Good job flamingspinach, t0rajir0u. lol" is not something that makes you credible or respectable in the least.

Oh and

YOUR 2-D, LINEAR GO BORES ME TO TEARS

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/view/39762 wtf someone mentioned you
ps stop being idle in #machogang

-fs

[trillobyite]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

That was remarkably more intelligent than your last post. Good job. I admit I didn't see "belligerent" as a noun at all, whoops - guess I read it wrong, but that is a rather awkward construction. By leverage, I meant "bring to bear". I still don't see how "debase" can apply, but I guess as long as you know what you're saying (which I believe now that you took the time to address my rant), I'll accept it. "thus" still doesn't work that way - it cannot connect phrases, it must connect clauses. As for the rest, you've adequately explained your intent in using them, notwithstanding the sundry grammar errors which I suppose anyone makes at times. In any case your last post was far more coherent than the one which I picked apart, and as a result my respect for you as a poster in CT has risen above a threshold that would cause me to want to argue about grammar and style with you

Still, though, you must admit that "I was testing to see how long it would take until I would be exposed for the fraud that I am knowing absolutely nothing about dimensions that is relevent to the thread. Good job flamingspinach, t0rajir0u. lol" is not something that makes you credible or respectable in the least.

Whoa, uhm...thanks! It's a pleasure to meet you
I'm sorry about being an idiot back there, and I won't purposelly screw up a thread again.

[Z3ratul]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Back to the OT... wanna really have an aneurism?

Puzzle > 5x5x5x5

Scarmble > Full

Options > Solve

Wow.

EDIT: Even on 2x2x2x2, it's pretty damn amazing.

[FFR4EVA_00]

Re: 5D Rubik's Cube

Back to the OT... wanna really have an aneurism?

Puzzle > 5x5x5x5

Scarmble > Full

Options > Solve

Wow.

EDIT: Even on 2x2x2x2, it's pretty damn amazing.

Better yet, 5x5x5x5x5. I'm afraid to watch it.