**From New Scientist #2510, 30th July 2005**

I took a large wooden cube and painted two of its faces red, two of its faces white, and its two remaining faces blue.

Then I cut up the cube into lots of identically sized smaller cubes and gave them to my niece to play with.

First she counted all the small cubes out loud “One, two, three…”. Then she counted the number of small cubes which had both at least one red face and at least one white face. Then she counted the number of small cubes which had at least one red face and at least one blue face but no white faces.

These last two answers were different but one was the reverse of the other.

How many small cubes have at least one white face but no red faces and no blue faces?

If found a few paper copies of **New Scientist** while tidying up. This puzzle is from one of them – it doesn’t seem to currently appear in either New Scientist’s or Google Books’ archives.

[enigma1351]

### Like this:

Like Loading...

The following Python program runs in 38ms.

Solution:There are 210 small cubes with only white painted faces.Note:This is the smallest solution – i.e. with the large cube cut into the smallest number of “cubelets” – the cube is cut into a 12 × 12 × 12 cube consisting of 1728 cubelets. Which must have taken Susan’s niece some time to count out loud.If you leave the program running you see that solutions exist for

n × n × ncubes wheren = 10^p + 2, for positive integersp. The solutions are all of the form2×10^2p + 10^p, with 210 being the smallest (p=1), the next smallest (p=2), would have 20100 cubelets with only white painted faces, but the initial cube would have been cut into 102 × 102 × 102 = 1,061,208 cubelets, which would take even the most committed niece too long to count out loud.