Talk:Magic hypercube

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

J.R.[edit]

Hi

J. R. Hendricks is the greatest ever magic cube and magic hypercube protagonist. I put the stuff about him in the article, entirely appropriately, seeing as he was the first person ever to create a magic tesseract. His mathematics papers on the subject are very good.

I've fixed the broken link.

One day I'll get round to creating a proper wiki entry for him.

In fact, maybe I'll do it tonight.

best wishes

Robinh 18:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many usefull information on magic cubes and hypercubes are in

http://members.shaw.ca/hdhcubes/ and

http://fedu.ku.sk/~trenkler/Cube-Ref.html

link to Hendricks page[edit]

I added the link to a page I wrote for John Hendricks before his death. This page will be carried on my ISP account for the foreseeable future Harvey Heinz 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from 4[edit]

I propose merging Magic tesseract into this article, Magic hypercube. There's not much more in that article than particularization of the general definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notation and sources[edit]

In addition to being technical (probably too technical for Wikipedia), there's no source given for the "[" notation. I assume it's due to Hendricks, but we'd still need a reliable source that it's used. For that matter, much of the constructions is probably also due to Hendricks, and we'd still need a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion[edit]

Please don't destroy this entry by merging magic tesseract, cubes nor square. this article is a global overview on the subject for everyone to enjoy. for those intrigued the links provide further information and samples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aale de Winkel (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. You seem to be one of the primary collectors of information on the subject. Is there anything in magic tesseract which shouldn't be merged here? I agree that magic square and magic cube should remain separate articles. I'm not sure about
There is some reason to create the last article, or at least provide general discussion of the subject somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nasik[edit]

I suggest that Nasik magic hypercube be merged into this article (Magic hypercube). It would add at most a paragraph, although would require rewriting the sentence on Perfect magic hypercubes here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT merge. I think the subject of Nasik 'magic Hypercube' is important enough that it should NOT be merged with another article. And the 'magic hypercube' term includes magic squares, cubes, teseracts, etc, so is all inclusive. Harvey Heinz (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan text from magic tesseract[edit]

The smallest possible nasik magic tesseract is of order 16; its magic constant is 524296. The first one was discovered by retired meteorologist John R. Hendricks from British Columbia in 1999 with the help of Cliff Pickover at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York after about ten hours of computing time on an IBM IntelliStation computer system.

I don't know if it should be here, in Nasik magic hypercube, or just too much information to be included anywhere, including back in magic tesseract. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

I came to this thinking it might need a little clean-up. I've read most of it, and chased down the references ... and I'm wondering if the entire collection of Magic Hyper Whatever articles are one big hoax! It is only from knowing some of the weird amateur mathematicians out there that I give it any chance of being serious!!

  • The references and links mostly don't work any more (I'll remove the dead ones now).
  • The article is very confusing - this to someone with some mathematical background.
  • The article is VERY LONG and very out of place in a public encyclopia.

Perhaps someone would be game to replace it with a couple of paragraphs describing what it is, and why it is interesting, and leave the rest to external links. Drpixie (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree, although I've not looked into it closely there's a lot here that looks like it doesn't belong. I recently went through Associative magic square removing a lot of questionable content and it seems these articles are magnets for amateur mathematicians and their pet projects. But our articles aren't meant to be about them and what they do, certainly not written by them, unless it's reported in reliable sources.
I suspect in this case after this is trimmed down very little will be left and what is could be merged into Magic square as another generalisation under Magic square#Generalizations. It's doesn't look from the references as if it's notable enough for a standalone article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Nasik magic hypercube into Magic hypercube[edit]

There is not enough sourceable, encyclopedic content to support multiple articles on this topic -- they could equally well be covered in a single article JBL (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Magic hyperbeam into Magic hypercube[edit]

There is not enough encyclopedic content here to support multiple articles, and most of both articles is duplicative and unencyclopedic rehashing of the same notations, operations, etc. The hyperbeam article has a few sources at the bottom that conceivably could be used as the basis of a (single, shorter) encyclopedic article JBL (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magic_hypercube&oldid=1212682285"