Slashdot Log In
Four-Dimensional Rubik's Cube Craziness
Posted by
simoniker
on Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:01 AM
from the my-mind-hurt-enough-solving-the-original dept.
from the my-mind-hurt-enough-solving-the-original dept.
roice writes "Rubik's junkies and puzzlers will be interested in this software rendered four-dimensional
analog of Rubik's Cube. With over 1.75E120 possible combinations, it's
a mind bender. Free versions are available for both Windows and Linux, and
they even publish their source code for download. Solving it will get your
name listed in their Hall
Of Fame, and there is also a running competition for the most efficient
solution. To help get you started, you can check out a solution algorithm based
on techniques used to solve the popular three-dimensional version."
Related Stories
[+]
A Working 5D Rubik's Cube 171 comments
Melinda Green writes "Readers who enjoyed the previous
Slashdot postings regarding the 4-dimensional Rubik's cube called MagicCube4D will
be interested to know that a couple of brilliant developers have
recently created a working 5-dimensional Rubik's
cube. Operating a 5 dimensional puzzle projected all the way down
to a 2D computer screen may seem a hopeless task but the full 5D puzzle
has already been solved
by 3 people. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 4D puzzle has now
been ported to Java and is available as both a full-featured desktop
application and as an Applet."
[+]
4D Analogue of Megaminx Puzzle 80 comments
roice writes "The crazy hypercubists who created the
4D and
5D Rubik's cubes (here are previous
Slashdot posts on
the 4-D one and
the 5-D one)
have now developed a free
working 4-dimensional software analogue of the
Megaminx puzzle. Composed of
120 dodecahedral cells, the
underlying structure is arguably the most beautiful of 4D geometrical shapes,
with amazing symmetries and no analogue in dimensions higher than 4.
Though some have already begun working on solutions for this 'Hyperminx,' it has
yet to be solved by anyone. Also, when it comes to
number of positions, it dwarfs the previous puzzles by many thousands of
orders of magnitude!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Great. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Is this actualy 4D ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's because I read some quack's claim that the 4th dimension was time. In which case a 4D rubics cube would solve itself over time or be onsolvable because it rescrambled while you were trying to solve.
Parent
Re:Is this actualy 4D ? (Score:5, Informative)
The 4th dimension is whatever you define it as. There's no "true" 4th dimension. Einstein had the idea that time could be treated in a fashion similar to that of the spatial dimensions, and so, in his work, he defined the 4th dimension as the temporal dimension.
However, for this program's purposes, it's assumed that we're talking about the 4th *spatial* dimension. You can (kinda) visualize it if you think of the progression of first 3 dimensions: a line (1st d) can be rotated 90 degrees to itself to form a square (2nd d) which can be rotated 90 degrees to itself to form a cube (3rd d). The 4th dimension is thus hypothesized as the space defined by a cube rotated 90 degrees to itself.
(Granted, I'm no mathematician, so if someone has a better understanding, please correct me.)
Parent
Re:Is this actualy 4D ? (Score:5, Informative)
This puzzle uses the first model mentioned above, except that you can only see seven cubes at once (the outer cube is hidden so that it won't block the view of the others). If you rotate the model (with Shift-left or Shift-right click), the outer cube comes into view.
Parent
Nope... (Score:3, Informative)
A real hypercube looks like a hypercube, not a cube with lines or anything else... of course you need to be five-dimensional to perceive the whole thing at once.
In general you need N+1 dimensions to perceive an N-dimensional object; for example, we can only fully perceive two dimensional objects all at once. Three dimensional objects we only see a particular side of, an
Re:Is this actualy 4D ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Example, take a room, it has 3 standard dimensions, now lets add another dimension, lets say temperature. Now we have a 4d object, we could even try and make a function to model temperature based on postion, temp = f(x,y,z);
You can even do neat things like make 3d objects out of 4d objects by taking a level surface of the 4d object. In simpler terms, take all of the points in the room that are one temperature, that will form a 3d o
Re:Is this actualy 4D ? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html
It's really tough to wrap your head around another spatial dimension. Books like Flatland and Realware make the comparison to a 2D person's world being interrupted by one of us.
For example, if you were 2D, living on your flat plane, and a 3D person passed an orange through the plane, you would perceive it as a round shape which grew out of nothingness, got bigger and changed shape for awhile, then shrank and disappeared.
A 3D person could also see into your house, because a 2D person would just build four walls and no ceiling or floor. Similarly, a 4D creature could see through all of us and our buildings, because we only build in three dimensions.
Parent
nooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:nooo (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure this 4D version will be just as easy...
Although I'm not sure how I'll peel off the colored stickers and rearrange them with this software version.
Hmmm
Parent
Re:nooo (Score:3, Informative)
Bah, as long as one minute? You are slow.
Check out this site [speedcubing.com], especially the multimedia section. There are videos of guys that solve the cube in less than 20 seconds!
Re:nooo (Score:5, Interesting)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Parent
Not interested... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not interested... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not interested... (Score:3, Funny)
Technique number one (Score:5, Funny)
Um, though that may be a little hard with the program, I'll admit.
Maybe if I apply the screwdriver to the ~~++5#Q%NO CARRIER
Re:Technique number one (Score:2)
Apply a screwdriver to it; reassemble in the proper order.
My favorite "solving" technique was a lot simpler... peel off the stickers and arrange them into the solution.
neurostarRe:Technique number one (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Technique number one (Score:5, Funny)
That's a violation of your End-User License Agreement and the DMCA.
Please lie face down on the ground, with your legs and arms apart. BSA agents will be arriving shortly to take you into custody.
Schwab
Parent
damn it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:damn it.... (Score:5, Informative)
He made a software/hardware 3D rubics cube solver using LEGO mindstorms, a quickcam, and VB.
Parent
Re:damn it.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:damn it.... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe somebody subjected you to one of my favorite old tricks. Take one corner off of a solved cube and rotate it so that the colors don't match the rest of the cube. Reassemble in this orientation. Presto: unsolveable cube.
Parent
Re:damn it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda funny -- I've inadvertently subjected myself to this same trick as a child. It always took so long to scramble the thing, it was easier to take it apart and put it back together in random order. Little did I realize there was a very good chance of creating an unsolvable cube.
Furthermore, I went so far as to buy a "how to solve the rubik's cube" book. Followed every goddamn step in that thing, and was pissed when it wasn't working. Eventually I tried it on my sibling's and it worked, and I came to the conclusion that mine was defective. Not sure how long it took me to figure out how mine became defective, but the blame was fully mine.
Gotta say, trying to solve an unsolveable puzzle sure kept me busy. It may have gotten my frustration tolerance up high enough that I can stand to debug those really nasty programs....
Parent
Re:damn it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Way back in the mists of time I tried that on my school's Rubik's wizard. I took three pieces and rotated them. Gave it to the wizard and waited. Five minutes later he returned the almost complete cube, pointing out the _one_ piece he was unable to get right as it had been rotated.
You were close... (Score:5, Informative)
And for the previous posts asking how long it takes a computer to do it... it's very, very low. Under a second. Many people can do it, manually (a computer just has to give the moves, it can ignore the time required to actually turn the cube) in under 20 seconds [speedcubing.com] (For the people out there in disbelief, Dan Knights has a video of him actually doing it in 17, it's for real. I won't post the link, because I'm not going to be responsible for slashdotting his site).
There's a huge difference between a computer solving it "brute force", and a person or computer solving it through established algorithms. By brute force, just twirling the cube until the solution popped up, it would take on average however long it takes your computer to process half of the possible combinations. That's quite a long time. However, a computer solving a cube how we would, focusing on time rather than least amount of moves, could easily solve more than one a second.
Parent
thats an easy one (Score:5, Funny)
duh...just peel off the stickers.
Re:thats an easy one (Score:3, Funny)
Umm (Score:2, Funny)
*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? (Score:5, Funny)
What, you have to step into the future to solve it? :-D
Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? (Score:2)
I solved the 4th Dimentional Cube! (Score:2)
That's what you get when you mess with the timeline!
Tried it a while back. (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it me (Score:2)
Be pepared... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Be pepared... (Score:2)
Anyone remember "Cubey"? (Score:4, Interesting)
The 1980s certainly seemed the nadir of American animation...
Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? (Score:2)
Not "Cubey", (Score:3, Informative)
Premiered on ABC: September 10, 1983-September 1, 1984.
The series ran for 1 year, and had a total of 12 episodes. It was
originally broadcast as "The Pac-Man/Rubik, The Amazing Cube Hour"
on Saturday mornings in colour with each Rubik segment lasting
22 minutes.
The Plot
--------
Rubik is discovered by a young boy (Carlos) who brings the colourful cube
to life - after he aligns all the cube's sides - an sets out on a magical
adventure tour along with h
heuristic search (Score:2)
Obviously, brute force, even at a massively parallel execution, is completely out of the question.
When I was a kid (Score:5, Funny)
Now I just get drunk and masturbate a lot.
Already done it. (Score:2)
Most efficient solution (Score:5, Funny)
2) Click SOLVE
Two clicks... anyone do better?
Re:Most efficient solution (Score:5, Funny)
3) PROFIT?
Parent
Rotates too fast (Score:3, Insightful)
Movie References (Score:5, Informative)
1-D Rubik's Cube! (Score:5, Funny)
The interface is simple: just look at it. Quantum mechnaics dictates that observing it changes it's state so just assume it's solved.
Here is a magnified version:
If you still have trouble with it, my book will be coming out pretty soon.
Hofstadter's the best source for rubik weirdness (Score:5, Informative)
There's also some excellent stuff in that book on Lisp, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, Alan Turing, and nuclear war... great selection of articles by an extremely interesting mind.
Re:Lego Solution (Score:5, Funny)
It's LEGO, not LEGO's, not Lego's, not lego's, not lEGO's, not leGO's, not legO's, not lego'S, not LeGo's, not lEgO'S.
It's not LEGOS, legos, LEGOS'.. ITS LEGO
"I have one LEGO, I have two LEGO, I have many LEGO. I enjoy playing with LEGO"
1 LEGO = LEGO
2 LEGO = STILL LEGO
No farking S!!
Ok I feel better now.
Parent
Re:Not complete (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. It's like having a physical 3D rubik's cube and not being able to see all 6 faces at the same time. You can however turn a physical cube around so you can see the hidden face. It's a similar idea in this one. The way to see the hidden "face" is given in the FAQ:
Q: I can turn a real cube around so that I can see the hidden faces, can
I do something similar to see the invisible eighth "face"?
A: Yes. If yo