If the cube is solid, there is no inside...

Yes there is. The inside is just filled with stuff. Every 3-D object has an inside, solid or not. It makes no difference if there is an empty space inside or not.

Well, if you really want to go there...

First, a "cube" is a mathematically defined shape, not actual matter. You can form matter into the shape of a cube and make it solid or not, but a cube is defined as being a volume that is completely enclosed by six adjoining, equally-sized, square sides.

Second, if we accept that your cube is solid, then the volume inside the cube is part of the cube itself, making it already part of one of the six edge sides, because there are no inner boundaries to separate any part of the 'inside' from the edges.

Third, you can't arbitrarily define 'inside' and 'outside' to have completely separate meanings--they are opposites and therefore closely related. If the 'outside' of the cube is separate from the cube by *not* being enclosed by the sides of the cube, then the 'inside' is also separate from the cube by *being* enclosed by (but not a part of) the cube--otherwise, it's part of the cube and not 'inside'. Your answer can count both or neither, but not one or the other.

** ...then the volume 'inside' the cube is part of the cube itself... (since I'm not conceding that there actually *is* an inside to a solid cube, the word 'inside' should've been quoted in the original paragraph.)

I disagree. There is such a thing as inside and outside. You are, I assume, inside your house (or whatever dwelling in which you reside, "house" will do to cover tents, apartments, large cardboard boxes). We cal also assume that your house, like most buildings is hollow. If I make a hole in the roof and fill your house completely with cement it would still be a house, but it will no longer be hollow. Whether your house is solid or hollow changes nothing as to inside/outside. Inside is simply defined as the space within the boundaries of a 3-D object.

Nope--you're proving my point for me. You're filling in the house with cement, which you can do *only* because it was hollow, so there was an 'inside' to begin with. The cement may fill up the space inside the house, but it is not a part of the house structure itself. If you take a single piece of solid wood (which, being a single, solid object would more closely approximate your hypothetical solid cube) and want to fill it with cement, you would first have to somehow create an 'inside' in order to do it.

And your last sentence agreescompletely with what I am saying--inside is defined as the SPACE within the boundaries of a 3-D object. A solid object doesn't have any space within it.

** - agrees completely. One day, maybe EP will get their act together and fix the editing for stories and responses.

You do not need to have empty space to have an inside. The inside of your body is nearly full of stuff (Blood, organs, water, food, waste products...) yet I'm sure you agree that your body has an inside.
In fact your house is filled with air which is made of matter and has mass and quite a lot of it. A cubic meter of air weighs about 1.29 kg.
It makes no difference that the air is a gas and easy to move through (so long as you don't move too fast)

I never said the space inside the object had to be empty--I conceded that the cement filling the house was, in fact, inside the house. The inside of an object does not have to be empty, but it DOES need to have a clear delineation from the object itself to be considered 'inside' that object. Otherwise what you're calling 'inside' is actually a part of the object, not 'inside' of the object.

And you're STILL making my arguments for me--each of the things you defined as being a part of my body are clearly identifiable objects, in and of themselves. Ask any doctor: There is a clear demarcation between my muscles and my skin. Between my bones and my bone marrow. Between my blood vessels and the blood traveling through them. Between my stomach and my stomach acid AND any food that might not yet be dissolved in that acid. Even down to the individual cells of my body--every one has a cell wall defining it relative to other cells. Each and every part has a recognizable boundary separating it from any other, making me a composite object which can be broken down into separate parts. Thus, I do agree that I have not one, but many potential 'insides', depending on the focus. I could even concede that my digestive tract as a whole, from mouth to anus, can be considered as being a sort of channel through my body and, therefore, a complete and totally separate 'inside' (or, heck, even 'outside', if you want to define it that way) and not necessarily a part of my body. If I was made completely of skin--all the way through to the core, with no other demarcations that could be identified as boundaries, then I would not have an 'inside' because I'd be just a solid lump of skin.

And you seem to insist on being deliberately obtuse when you go back to the analogy of my house. The air in my house (the weight of the air is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation) is no more a part of my house when it's contained within the structure than *I* am a part of my house when I'm contained within the structure (or even the cement you previously filled it with). The air inside my house at this very moment can be purged and replaced without any impact to the house's structure, making it separate from the house. The fact that ANYTHING can be contained within my house does give my house a clearly defined 'inside'.

Once again, with feeling: It doesn't matter whether you're referring to a solid, liquid or gas--or some combination thereof--if something can be identified as separate from the boundary containing it, it can be agreed that it is, in fact, inside the boundary and not a part of that boundary. If you can't identify a demarcation between what you're saying is 'inside' the boundary and the boundary itself, then there is nothing 'inside' the boundary because everything within the boundary is still a part of that boundary. Unless you can refute that statement (no more opinions or irrelevant analogies--just logic and facts, please), I think we're done.

If I pit a needle just 1 picometer under your skin it is still INSIDE your body. A mouse INSIDE the wall of your house is INSIDE your house, because the entire wall is INSIDE your house. "INSIDE" is defined as being within the boundaries of an object. If you are in the "Four Corners" area of the US you can be INSIDE four states at the same time.
You are trying to evoke some kind of mystical meaning to "INSIDE", when it's really really simple. Inside is within the boundaries of an object regardless of what other objects might be inside as well. Inside is not a part of something, it's not a separate part of something else. It is simply a volume of space, empty or full.

"put, not pit.

*sigh* More irrelevant analogies...

The needle, regardless of it's size, is still identifiably separate from my body, so it can be agreed to be able to be inserted 'inside' my body, even if it has to push cells of my body apart to squeeze in. When you define the mouse as 'inside' the wall, you've defined a completely new boundary--the confines of the wall, not the confines of the house. A wall is defined by the composite elements used to create the wall; a house is defined by its walls, regardless of what those walls comprise--cinderblock, sheetrock, wood, insulation, mice, termites, amoebas...you can select one or the other as your defined boundary--not both. True, each of the four corners states has it's own boundary, but those are LEGAL boundaries which have a completely separate set of rules from math or physics, making that analogy, again, irrelevant to this discussion.

No, you're the one trying to mystify 'inside', not me. Note that the definition you just gave in this last reply is remarkably similar to the one I've been stating all along. "Inside is WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN OBJECT regardless of what other objects might be inside as well." I've already conceded that there may be many things 'inside' of an object, just not the object itself. So you can be as argumentative as you like, but you've just now stated that you agree with what I've been saying.

The horse you're beating is not only dead, it's long since disintegrated. Time to move on...

This entire argument began because you said that a solid cube has no inside. If the cube (dice) has no inside then the area between the 1 dot and the six dots would not exist. If that part of the universe doesn't exist then what is keeping the one side away from the six side? THE INSIDE OF THE CUBE!

Seriously, dude--you need to go back to high school if you can't tell the difference between a volume of 'space' that exists and a volume of space that exists 'inside' an object. Or maybe it's back to elementary school. Whatever. You have yet to refute a single definition or logical statement I've made without resorting to analogies that end up supporting my arguments instead of yours--including this one.

For the record, I will stipulate that I have no clue how a die is manufactured (and the answer is irrelevant, so don't go off on a tangent with the details) but it is either a solid object with the same material that exists on the surface going all the way through -OR- it is a hollow shell (a.k.a. boundary) with other matter inside the shell. If it is the first, I could challenge you to put something--anything, even just air--inside that cube without first carving out a volume of space for it. If it's the second, that volume of space INSIDE already exists, though you may need to replace whatever is already inside with whatever you want to put there.

You may be in an argument, krool1969, but I, myself, am not. The facts and logic are doing all the work here and I'm just typing them up. To that end, I'll throw you some more facts and logic: If you keep everything in the mathematical world, where you seem to think it always belonged, anyway (meaning no houses, no dice, no bodies...), then a cube--as a mathematically defined 'solid'--is nothing more than a volume of space that has been carved out of the surrounding space by a specific, mathematical definition (bound by six adjoining, equally-sized, squares), right? Let me repeat that a bit slower: a...mathematically...bound...volume...of...space. In other words, the entire volume of that space IS the cube. There is no 'inside' to the mathematical definition of a solid, there is only that volume of space that *is* the cube and that volume of space that *isn't*. So, in order for there to be an 'inside', we have to take it out of the mathematical-world-only scenario and allow for the existence of a cube-shaped object that has been created to be hollow so that an 'inside' exists. Except now that an 'inside' exists, so does an 'outside' and, as I pointed out earlier, you cannot logically count the 'inside' while ignoring the 'outside'. You have to either count both or neither, giving possible answers of 6 or 8, not your implied answer of 7. Otherwise, it's like me saying I'm going to set this cube in the sun and count the sunny side(s) but not the shadowed side(s)--totally arbitrary with no logic behind it, making any answer based on that premise questionable, at best.

But now I could point out that if our cube is hollow in such a way that the space inside is also a cube (because it's certainly possible that the inner shape is a sphere or a pyramid, or some other such non-cube shape, right?), then there now also exists six inner 'sides' (the backs to each of the outer six 'sides' that were already counted) that would also have to be included, giving you possible answers of 12 or 14, depending on whether you counted the inside and outside, earlier. Of course, the answers could vary wildly if the inner shape is not also a cube and I will leave the calculation of all the possible answers from those scenarios as an exercise for the reader.

I am fully aware that your question was posted as a fun riddle, but riddles make no sense when some constraints are enforced while others are banned arbitrarily. Just for grins, I did a brief internet search on this riddle and found several instances, but only one included the same fallacy the led to the answer being 7. Most counted 8 (both inside and outside) and none considered that having an inside would necessarily create even more physical 'sides' to the structure that must be counted. In short, whoever concocted this riddle way back when really needed to put more thought into both the wording of the question and the possible acceptable answers. So aim your irritation in his direction, not mine.

I have done my best to show that the inside of an object exists regardless of what the inside is made of. You are convinced I'm an idiot because I insist that insides or insides no matter what. I am convinced that you are an idiot because you refuse to see that the definition of "inside" is simple. "an interior or internal part or place : the part within "
The "part within" does not need to be made of anything different. It does not need to contain separate parts, it can be empty (like a vacuum tube) or it can be filled with plastic, like dice. The truth is, you we will never change our minds because we are both convinced we a right. I know myself and I know that when someone convinces me I'm wrong I do change my mind. I don't know you at all and have no idea what sort of person you are, but I'd bet you feel about yourself the way I feel about myself but I have grown board with this argument. Good bye.

The fact that you have now abandoned any pretense of logical discussion in favor of name calling has just wiped out any and all credibility you had. I never called you an idiot nor even thought it. That is all 100% in your own mind.

As I stated before, you were the only one having an argument here. It's not my fault you can't find either definitions or logical arguments to support your belief. If you could, you would have done so. I don't care whether you ever change your mind--you have a right to your beliefs, even if you can't prove them. I presented the facts and the logic to support my side and anyone interested can read this exchange and make up their own minds, based on what each of us has presented.

I grew bored with this discussion long ago (remember when I asked you to stop providing irrelevant analogies?), but you insisted on continuing it and I didn't simply dismiss you and walk away. I would've been willing to consider changing my mind had you provided facts or logical arguments, but you never did. Your belief that your viewpoint overrides widely accepted mathematical definitions and seasoned logic tells me all I need to know about you--we're nothing alike. Have a nice life.

12 More Responses

So the answer is......6...If we count only the inside,right ?