>>11789945>Each cubelet has 6 faces, so we can rephrase this as "The painter selects one of the 27*6 cubelet faces and places it so that it is hidden by the table.i think this is the part of anon's post that bothers you
perhaps you would justify it along those lines:
IF we treat selecting cubelets as a two stage process
1: select cubelet (randomly)
2: present it on it the table (somehow)
THEN if a cubelet is not selected in stage 1, there is no chance for any of it's faces to be selected for presentation in stage 2. i think you think anon wrongly includes cubelet faces from "dead" cubelets when he pools up all the cubelet faces for his 27*6 calculation
when we see the cubelet with 5 visible faces on the table, we know for a fact that this cubelet had to "survive" a selection process where it had a 1/27 chance to be picked and 26/27 chance to be ignored. on the core(unpainted) cubelet, all faces share the same fate, they live or die together, and having more unpainted faces doesn't increase their survival chance. i think this is your justification for only counting it once.
however you ignore the fact that we see 5 unpainted faces. even though stage 1 filters out cubes that didn't pass a 1/27 dice roll(to be selected), round 2 of the selection filters out cubelets that are showing you a painted face. here the core cubelet gets an advantage, because it gets a pass no matter how you present it. you can casually throw it and not have to worry about accidentally revealing paint. but the outer cubelets have to be placed just right. you have to conceal the dirty face.
i think the second stage has to exist and i'm not making it up, because there is no "neutral" way to present a cube, you have to either pick a way to do it(cheating), or you don't care about presentation, but then you're just haphazardly leaving its fate to chance. if the painter is cheating, we still don't know what his intent is, so it may as well be random.
