How do I approach this problem? (Cubes within a larger cube....)

• Thiru07
In summary, a cube with dimensions 8cm x 8cm x 8cm is divided into smaller cubes of 1cm x 1cm x 1cm. These smaller cubes are numbered in a way that the number on each cube represents the smallest volume enclosed by extending the sides of the cube to the outer surface of the larger cube. The sum of the numbers on the cubes along the two body diagonals of the largest cube is 120. The cubes on the surface of the larger cube are all numbered 1, and the next layer contains cubes numbered 8, and so on. The numbers 4 and 9 only arise in the 2D version of the problem. To find the number of cubes bearing multiples
Thiru07

Homework Statement

A cube of 8cm x 8cm x 8cm is divided into smaller cubes of 1cm x 1cm x 1cm and all the smaller cubes are numbered and arranged to form the larger cube. The smaller cubes are numbered such that the number on the cube represents the smallest volume enclosed by extending the sides of the cube to the outer surface of the largest cube and each cube bears the same number on each surface.
Find the sum of the numbers on the cubes along the two body diagonals of the largest cube.

Homework Equations

Volume of a cube = side*side*side

The Attempt at a Solution

I'm not able to visualise what's given in the problem.

I need a little push here.

This is the only way (in two dimensions) I can think of it, since the question confuses me, too.

fresh_42 said:
This is the only way (in two dimensions) I can think of it, since the question confuses me, too.
View attachment 109435
I went through it's solution ,
but I hardly understood anything.

So the difference to my interpretation is, that I required an expansion in all directions, and the book only in one direction, the shortest to the outer boundary.

fresh_42 said:
So the difference to my interpretation is, that I required an expansion in all directions, and the book only in one direction, the shortest to the outer boundary.
How did you get all those perfect squares of odd numbers?
What do you mean by
the book only in one direction
?

Then let me choose the version where expansion isn't required to be in all directions.

Here the square (3,4) has a distance of 3 squares to hit the boundary first, here to the top. So a minimum of ##3^2=9## grey squares can be covered without leaving the outer square. The blue one is bigger (25), but as far as I understood it, the smallest one is meant.

fresh_42 said:
Then let me choose the version where expansion isn't required to be in all directions.

View attachment 109439

Here the square (3,4) has a distance of 3 squares to hit the boundary first, here to the top. So a minimum of ##3^2=9## grey squares can be covered without leaving the outer square. The blue one is bigger (25), but as far as I understood it, the smallest one is meant.
Cubes(1cm x 1cm x 1cm) numbered 4,9 and 16 are present inside the largest cube(8cm x 8cm x 8cm) and not on the surface as it appears above in the 2D image right?
If that's the case, then these cubes numbered 4,9 and 16 are invisible right?
Only cubes numbered 1 are visible i.e all the six surfaces have only one numbered cubes .
am I right?

The problem statement doesn't say anything about visibility. In fact, it asks for the numbers of the body diagonal of the large (8,8,8) cube, which aren't visible except of the two at the ends.

fresh_42 said:
The problem statement doesn't say anything about visibility. In fact, it asks for the numbers of the body diagonal of the large (8,8,8) cube, which aren't visible except of the two at the ends.
I'm getting 4*(1+4+9+16) = 120 as the sum of the numbers on the cubes along the two body diagonals of the largest cube.
What am I doing wrong?

That's the two-dimensional answer. In three dimensions, the squares turn into cubes and the powers turn from ##2## into ##3##.

fresh_42 said:
That's the two-dimensional answer. In three dimensions, the squares turn into cubes and the powers turn from ##2## into ##3##.
Thank you fresh_42

I have 3 more questions from the same problem.
1) Find the number of cubes bearing the numbers which are multiple of three.
2) Find the sum of numbers on all the smaller cubes on the surface of the larger cube.
3) Find the number of cubes bearing the number 8 on them.

I have following questions.
We are required to extend the sides of the cube to the furthest outer surface or closest?
If we are required to extend the sides of the cube to the closest outer surface , then all the cubes on all the surfaces will bear number 1 right?

Thiru07 said:
We are required to extend the sides of the cube to the furthest outer surface or closest?
I don't think there's any different extending involved in these three questions.

Edit: I left out the crucial word "different"

Last edited:
haruspex said:
I don't think there's any extending involved in these three questions.
Number of cubes bearing the numbers which are multiple of three is 296
What I'm getting is (4*8)+(4*8)+(4*8) = 96
I missed a lot of cubes. But I don't know which cubes I skipped.
are 1,4,9 and 16 the only numbers smaller cubes can bear?

Thiru07 said:
Number of cubes bearing the numbers which are multiple of three is 296
What I'm getting is (4*8)+(4*8)+(4*8) = 96
I missed a lot of cubes. But I don't know which cubes I skipped.
are 1,4,9 and 16 the only numbers smaller cubes can bear?
My understanding of the extension process is that for the given small cube you find the smallest cube which contains it and has an exterior face. Thus, all the surface cubes are numbered 1. If you peel those off, the next layer are all numbered 8, and so on.
The numbers 4 and 9 only arise in the 2D version that fresh_42 used as illustration.
What multiples of three will there be?

haruspex said:
My understanding of the extension process is that for the given small cube you find the smallest cube which contains it and has an exterior face. Thus, all the surface cubes are numbered 1. If you peel those off, the next layer are all numbered 8, and so on.
The numbers 4 and 9 only arise in the 2D version that fresh_42 used as illustration.
What multiples of three will there be?
Okay, if I peel off twice , I will get a 4x4x4 cube with number 27(multiple of 3) on all 6 faces.
Why do I think that the total number of cubes along all six faces of this 4x4x4 cube is the answer which is 48 and not 296?
Why I'm wrong?

Thiru07 said:
Okay, if I peel off twice , I will get a 4x4x4 cube with number 27(multiple of 3) on all 6 faces.
Why do I think that the total number of cubes along all six faces of this 4x4x4 cube is the answer which is 48 and not 296?
Why I'm wrong?
4x4x4 after two? You start with 8x8x8. After taking off one layer you have 7x7x7... You have to go through all the layers, looking for all multiples of 3.

haruspex said:
4x4x4 after two? You start with 8x8x8. After taking off one layer you have 7x7x7... You have to go through all the layers, looking for all multiples of 3.
Previously, I thought peeling off as peeling off all the six surfaces, which reduces the 8x8x8 cube to 6x6x6 cube.
When you say peeling off a layer you mean peeling off just one surface right? i.e After peeling off , you get a 8x8x7 cube. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thiru07 said:
Previously, I thought peeling off as peeling off all the six surfaces, which reduces the 8x8x8 cube to 6x6x6 cube.
When you say peeling off a layer you mean peeling off just one surface right? i.e After peeling off , you get a 8x8x7 cube. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Whoops - my blunder.

Yes, sorry, after two you have only 4x4x4 left. So I calculate there are 56 with numbers divisible by 3.

Edit: 296 is the answer to a different question: how many have the number 1?

haruspex said:
Whoops - my blunder.

Yes, sorry, after two you have only 4x4x4 left. So I calculate there are 56 with numbers divisible by 3.

Edit: 296 is the answer to a different question: how many have the number 1?
How did you get 56?
I got only 48 from counting all these 6 surface cubes which are completely covered with number 9.

By the way , Attached is the given solution which I did not understand.
Can you please tell if it makes any sense?

Attachments

• cube2.JPG
35.4 KB · Views: 410
I fold. I have no idea, how the numbering is actually meant to be. I thought I had, but this solutions looks quite different to what I have thought.

fresh_42 said:
I fold. I have no idea, how the numbering is actually meant to be. I thought I had, but this solutions looks quite different to what I have thought.
Thank you so much for your time and effort

1. How do I determine the dimensions of the smaller cubes within the larger cube?

The dimensions of the smaller cubes can be determined by dividing the length, width, and height of the larger cube by the number of smaller cubes in each dimension. For example, if the larger cube is 10 cm on each side and there are 8 smaller cubes within it, then each smaller cube would have dimensions of 10/2 = 5 cm.

2. What is the relationship between the volume of the larger cube and the smaller cubes?

The volume of the larger cube is equal to the sum of the volumes of all the smaller cubes within it. In other words, the total volume of the smaller cubes must add up to the volume of the larger cube.

3. How do I determine the total number of smaller cubes within the larger cube?

The total number of smaller cubes within the larger cube can be calculated by multiplying the number of smaller cubes in each dimension. For example, if there are 8 smaller cubes in each dimension, then the total number of smaller cubes would be 8 x 8 x 8 = 512 cubes.

4. What is the formula for finding the surface area of the smaller cubes?

The formula for finding the surface area of a cube is 6 x (side length)^2. Therefore, the surface area of each smaller cube can be calculated by plugging in the dimensions of the smaller cube into this formula.

5. How do I approach this problem if there are different sized cubes within the larger cube?

If there are different sized cubes within the larger cube, the same principles still apply. You will need to determine the dimensions, volume, and surface area of each individual cube and then add them together to get the total for the larger cube. It may be helpful to break the larger cube into smaller sections and calculate the dimensions and quantities for each section separately.

• Quantum Physics
Replies
16
Views
1K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
3K
• Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
3K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
9K
• Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K