Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A Working 5D Rubik's Cube

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Jun 04, 2006 08:00 AM
from the i'm-still-confused-in-2d dept.
Puzzle Games (Games) Entertainment Games
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Four-Dimensional Rubik's Cube Craziness 296 comments
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."
[+] 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This discussion has been archived.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.

A Working 5D Rubik's Cube 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • MY HEAD ASPLODE! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:05AM (#15466021)
    n/t
  • ...it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.

    • Re:I see that... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:11AM (#15466045)
      ...it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.


      You don't need to explain your reasons not to solve this puzzle. ;)

    • Then don't download it. For the thousands of us who already downloaded it for another program, it's not that big of a deal.

    • Re:I see that... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pla (258480) on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:39AM (#15466130) Journal
      it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.

      I see you've gotten spanked as a troll... Unfortunate. Personally, I don't suspect you of trolling, just stating a fact. However...

      Whether you like it or not (and I say this as a .NET developer who does not), since Visual Studio 2005 builds to .NET 2.0, just about everything will use it within a year or two. Add to that Vista's intended use of WinFX (basically just .NET 3) as the core API, and you can pretty much kiss Win32 goodbye.

      A pity, really, because .NET has truly abysmal performance. Who cares about the size on disk - I care far more that it eats memory like a kid with a box of tic-tacs. (Cue someone parroting that you can get 4GB for about $250 nowadays, which I think you'll agree completely misses the point).

      Regardless, you would do yourself a favor to get used to .NET; Sooner or later you will have no choice, so why deprive yourself of cool toys that (unfortunately) use it now?

    • Re:I see that... (Score:4, Funny)

      by DrunkenTerror (561616) on Sunday June 04 2006, @10:11AM (#15466496) Homepage Journal
      You know, the Nazis had pieces of framework that they made the Jews download.
    • the applet uses both left, right, and control clicks, which means people browsing the web via mac get the shaft too

    • No good deed... (Score:5, Funny)

      by KingSkippus (799657) * on Sunday June 04 2006, @11:30AM (#15466898) Homepage Journal

      Oh my god, you're right! It does look like he wrote this application in .NET solely for the purpose of being a huge burden on everyone! After thinking about it, I guess it really does have nothing to do with .NET probably being the language he's most familiar with. I'm sure that he probably did want to spend several months learning a new language for something that could best be described as an amusing diversion, but chose not to because he wanted to waste the few minutes it would take you to download and install .NET. Come to think of it, I'm sure the fact that most people already have .NET installed probably just makes him mad, because it mitigates the toll his application will take on society.

      The fact that it's kind of cool is only a ruse in his more diabolical agenda of making your life miserable for five or so minutes. The fact that we are compelled to install it by means I don't quite understand yet only makes the situation worse. If only we had a choice whether or not we wanted to play with a 5-dimensional Rubik's Cube!

      Personally, I think that if you're as outraged as I am, since you're obviously so much smarter then me, you should rewrite his application in a morally superior language. The kink in this fool's plan is that he seems to have forgotten to patent the application (but be careful, it could be another trick!), which leaves the door open for anyone to simply rewrite it!

      Please start working on it right away, as this outrage must not go unanswered!

  • Bet they cheated (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:09AM (#15466039)
    the full 5D puzzle has already been solved by 3 people.
    No doubt, they just pulled it apart and put it back together with all the blocks in the correct orientation. Saw my kid sister do that with the 3-D version.
    • Pfft! Why go to all that trouble. When I bought my Rubik's cube I just took it out of the box, looked at each side and it was done! It's sat on my windowsill ever since! Far too easy...

    • The problem with that is if you take apart and reassemble a 4D or 5D Rubik's Cube, you also turn the universe inside-out.

  • after seeing the picture on the front page.. Given that i probably will be dead within the next 100 years i doubt i'll have time to finish it anyways, it's just to many dimensions..
    • Given that i probably will be dead within the next 100 years i doubt i'll have time to finish it anyways, it's just to many dimensions..

      You should read Diaspora [wikipedia.org] by Greg Egan.

  • Anyone know where you can buy a real 5D cube? I hate trying to solve them on a computer screen. Much easier in real life.

    Also I will need a spare set of 4 dimensional stickers in case the original ones fall off.

  • Can you still... (Score:4, Funny)

    by d_p (63654) on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:19AM (#15466066)
    ...peel off the stickers in 5 dimensions?
  • I remember having recieved a rubic cube as a gift many years back. It took up a lot of my time in solving the cube. Heck the cube was so popular that there were entire books written detailing how to solve the cube. And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes. Now a five dimentional rubic cube (albeit a software one) - that could be a real challenge even for rubic cube champions themselves. Too bad the software require microsoft dot net framework to run.
    • Funny - I ran the Java applet version one on my SuSE Linux machine in Firefox.
      Unless the normal SuSE 10.1 distro comes with the .NET framework pre-installed, I'm going to have to say 'no, it runs just fine with zero Microsoft software necessary.'

    • Should be possible in a few minutes (Score:5, Informative)

      by MarkByers (770551) on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:32AM (#15466101) Homepage Journal
      And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes.

      Using a few simple, easy-to-learn algorithms, and with a few weeks practice it is possible for pretty much anyone to solve the 3D cube in just 2 or 3 minutes. Using a layer-by-layer method you can solve each piece one at a time in the first two layers, then learn 4 algorithms to fix the last layer (not necessarily in this order):

      1) Rotate edges
      2) Rotate corners
      3) Permute corners
      4) Permute edges

      Sometimes you will have to use an algorithm twice. Each algorithm takes about 10 moves, and at a slow speed of one move per second and a bit of luck you can solve the last layer in under a minute. Here's a beginner's guide:

      http://peter.stillhq.com/jasmine/rubikscubesolutio n.html [stillhq.com]

      If you want to get faster you need to learn more algorithms so that you can complete two steps at once.

      A popular method which can be used to get very fast times is the Fridrich method, but it requires a lot of memorisation and lots and lots of practice:

      http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html [binghamton.edu]

      Personally I managed to get times of under 1 minute by practising the cube every day in the bus to and from work.

  • Don't look so surprised... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MojoMagic (669271) on Sunday June 04 2006, @08:32AM (#15466104)
    Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd!!!!

    Damn... And I thought I was hopelessly nerdy.
    I must look positively herculean next to these guys.

    I remember spending the better part of an afternoon last summer trying to solve my girlfriend's father's 20 year old rubiks cube.
    I was really close to solving it when it litterally fell apart in my hands. Turns out one of the (now grown up) kids had once tried to forcibly solve it with a screwdriver. Now, whenever you it get into a certain configuration (ie: a near-finished state) it loses all structural integrity.
    I could have cried... I WAS SO CLOSE!!!

    I was crazy to spend so long on a three diementional rubik's cube.
    But, I don't know which is crazier... That someone made a four diementional version, or that people have already solved it. ... And don't get me started on the five diementional one...

  • 4d Java Applet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewkNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday June 04 2006, @09:30AM (#15466324)
    That 4d java applet is amazing! It even runs perfectly fast on my Pentium II.

  • Really 4D/5D? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by beaverfever (584714) on Sunday June 04 2006, @10:22AM (#15466551) Homepage
    Is there anyone reading with the brains/training to confidently/accurately answer some questions please?

    "These are Rubik's cubes of the form 3d [gravitation3d.com], with the original popular puzzle being 33. We label the puzzles like this because they are a d-dimensional cube broken into 3d smaller pieces or "cubies" of the same dimension. For example, the 3D cube has 33 or 27 total 3-dimensional cubies."

    Does adding cubies really mean adding a dimension, or does it mean simply making a more complicated 3D puzzle and giving it a fancy name? (Behold: the Fifth Dimension! Amaze Your Friends!)

    I noticed in the 4D model [superliminal.com] that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that? What do the green cubes represent? Where are the pieces which disappear supposed to be going, and why can't we see the changes being made to this set of cubies? Is the invisible set a cheat on the part of the designers?

    I have not played with the 5D version, and so have no questions about that one.
    • I noticed in the 4D model that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that?

      You just cannot see all sides of the cube simultaneously, just as with it's 3d-counterpart.

    • Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Surt (22457) on Sunday June 04 2006, @11:33AM (#15466913) Homepage Journal
      It's a true 4 dimensional puzzle in the sense that this is what you could build as a rubik's cube equivalent if we lived in a 4d universe rather than a 3d universe.

      The green cubes that appear and disappear as you make moves are from the 'hidden' face of the hypercube, which has 8 faces. Their projection is using a base unfolding, to understand what they've done consider the parallel from unfolding a 3d cube into 2d. Imagine you are staring precisely face on at a cube:

            XXX
            XXX
            XXX

      Now unfold all the sides connected to the X's so you can see them straight on:

            OOO
            OOO
            OOO
      AAAXXXBBB
      AAAXXXBBB
      AAAXXXBBB
            MMM
            MMM
            MMM

      If you started playing a game of rubik's cube on this, you'd soon see another letter show up whenever you made a move, let's call it G for green. Where do the G's come from? From the sixth face of the cube that wasn't visible due to the choice of unfolding. The face exactly opposite of the X's ... the 'rear' of the cube if you will.

      Same thing in the 4d case. There are 8 faces, only 7 of which are visible due to their poor choice of unfolding technique.

      Here's wolfram's hypercube page for more info:
      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypercube.html [wolfram.com]

  • If the three dimensions are length, width, heighth, and the fourth is time -- how do you accurately depict that? What is the 5th dimension? How can these be anything more than an extended 3D object? I know someone out there knows what's going on, please fill me in?
    • If you exist in one dimension, is the 2nd dimension neccessarilry width, or is it height? There are many other choices, but we tend to pick time because it is easily understood by us.

    • Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Easy2RememberNick (179395) on Sunday June 04 2006, @11:30AM (#15466899)
      What is the 5th dimension?

        They were a 1970's group, they had a hit called "Aquarius".

    • Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ngileadi (966224) <nimrod DOT gileadi AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday June 04 2006, @12:02PM (#15467070)
      When they say 4D they actually mean 4 spatial (geometrical) dimensions.
      Although time is said to be the 4th dimension is time, it is only an analogy. Time appears in several physical equations in a context similar to the 3 spatial dimensions, but it is always treated differently.
      For example, the spacetime "distance" is calculated by:
      sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2*t^2)
      Notice the negative sign and the additional speed-of-light factor.

      If there were 4 spatial dimensions, the distance would be calculated by
      sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2 + v^2)
      taking v as the displacement in the 4th dimension.

      The Rubik's cube programs work by projecting 4 or 5 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane (your screen), basically in the same way that perspective is used to project 3D pictures onto 2D planes.

      So the 4th and 5th dimension aren't mathematically or conceptually different to the familiar 3 dimensions. The only difference is that we cannot comprehend them.

  • Psh~ (Score:3, Funny)

    by FFOMelchior (979131) on Sunday June 04 2006, @11:48AM (#15466988)
    Why must people always strive to make things more complicated. I say someone should design and implement a 2D Rubik Cube. Personally, I'd find that far more fun.
    • A 4 Dimensional Cube is called a Tesseract, unless you assume time is a dimension (which it frequently is/is cited as being).
        • it's pretty simple, really. Y'know how we draw a cube in 2D as two squares with the corners connected?
          You can 'draw' a 4D cube in 3D space by making two wireframe cubes, and joining all the equivalent corners. You can also think of it as a cube moving from one place to another, with every 'frame' inbetween shown.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.