Each vertex of a cube is to be labeled with an integer through , with each integer being used once, in such a way that the sum of the four numbers on the vertices of a face is the same for each face. Arrangements that can be obtained from each other through rotations of the cube are considered to be the same. How many different arrangements are possible?
- A)
- B)
- C)
- D)
- E)
Answer
C
Key insight
Equal face sums force each antipodal pair to differ by one constant d, and 1 through 8 split into equal-difference pairs only for d = 1, 2, 4.
Solution
Each vertex lies on three faces, so the six face sums total and each face sums to .
Structure. Two adjacent faces share an edge ; each equals plus the edge parallel to on that face, so those two parallel edges have equal vertex sums. Let be a vertex with antipode , and let be a neighbor of with antipode . Edges and are parallel and share no face, so , i.e. . Repeating with the other two neighbors of shows every antipodal pair has the same difference , with the larger label on the tetrahedron of vertices at even distance from .
Converse. Each face holds two vertices and two others whose antipodes are the remaining two vertices, so every face sums to ; any such labeling works.
Count. Split into four pairs with common difference : gives ; gives ; gives ; no other works. For each , rotate to a fixed vertex; its partner is opposite, and the other three pairs fill the remaining axes in ways, which the three rotations about 's diagonal collapse to .
Total: . The answer is .
Why this works
Subtracting the equations of two overlapping faces cancels the shared edge and exposes a hidden equality; iterating that idea turns a global condition into a local one (constant antipodal difference). Once the structure is forced, counting reduces to a small number-theory question (equal-difference pairings) times an orbit count under rotations. Whenever "all sums equal" appears, difference adjacent equations.
The trap
Trying to place numbers by trial without deriving a structural constraint, or dividing by the wrong symmetry count (24 rotations, not 48 symmetries).
Common mistakes
- Trying to place numbers by trial without deriving a structural constraint, or dividing by the wrong symmetry count (24 rotations, not 48 symmetries).
- Accepting (pairs leave and unmatched) and answering or more.
- Forgetting the mirror-image arrangements around vertex are not rotations of each other, which undercounts to .
Techniques
Split into exhaustive cases and handle each · Exploit symmetry to reduce work or pair up objects