4D Analogue of Megaminx Puzzle

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!"

Get off my lawn!

[by Anonymous Coward]

In MY days, we were more than happy to have 2D and 3D!

Damn kids these days!

Re:

[SimonGhent (57578)]

2D? 3D?

In my day we had one dimension and did we complain?

(well, yes actually, but no one cared)

Re:Get off my lawn!

[Thelasko (1196535)]

In my day we had one dimension and did we complain?

I did, it went something like this
Dah-dah-dah Dah-dit Dit, Dah-di-dit Di-dit Dah-dah Dit Dah-dit Di-di-dit Di-dit Dah-dah-dah Dah-dit, Di-di-dit Di-di-dah Dah-di-dah-dit Dah-di-dah Di-di-dit Dah-di-dah-di-dah-dah
Note: I couldn't use -. because of the lameness filter.

Re:Get off my lawn!

[omeomi (675045)]

I'm always happy when somebody comes out with a puzzle that nobody can solve (yet, I suppose). Makes me feel less stupid than not being able to solve the ones that tons of people can solve, like the Rubik's Cube.

Re:Get off my lawn!

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787)]

Allow me to shove your head under the putrescent waters of depression.

Three year old solves rubik's cube in less than 2 minutes. [youtube.com]
6 year old solves rubik's cube in 40 seconds. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 20 seconds with one hand. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 50 seconds -- with his feet [youtube.com]

\I can't solve it either

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

The rubiks cube is one of those puzzles that's easy to do once you figure out the process. In fact, figuring out the process is really the only interesting part of the puzzle, and once you know it there's not much point to doing it anymore.

Re:Get off my lawn!

[Alpha830RulZ (939527)]

I'm guessing you might have been distracted. We forgive you.

Re:Get off my lawn!

[SwordsmanLuke (1083699)]

So, a few years back, I noticed some of my (less than genius) co-workers were playing with - and solving - the Rubik's Cube! I'd had a cube since I was a kid, but had never learned to solve it, but I figured if these guys could do it, I could do it. Over the next month I spent literally every free moment messing with the cube until I finally taught myself how to solve the damn thing. I was so proud.

As a reward, I went out and bought a new cube, like the ones my co-workers had. I got it home, opened my new cube... and discovered that they come with instructions now.

Re:

[Nautical Insanity (1190003)]

You know I was frustrated with the people who thought they knew how to solve Rubik's Cubes. So I went out and bought one, switched two of the corner tiles and gave it to people to solve. Nothing has ever satisfied the evil side of me more...other than putting tape on my cat's paw...

Re:

[hairyfeet (841228)]

While I can understand how that might be appealing to you, don't forget that the real point of puzzles is to have fun while exercising your brain. I just wish I still had all my puzzles from the 80's craze. I had the cube,the snake,the barrel,the pyramid,etc. But somehow they got lost through the sands of time. The only one I have left is this one [geocities.com] which I currently need to fix AGAIN,as my youngest nephew seems to think it's really funny to mess it up while I'm not looking.

But don't let the fact that some

Unbelievable

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787)]

Crazy bastards actually went and did it.

I'm holding out

[jayhawk88 (160512)]

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.

Re:I'm holding out

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time.

Or it could incorporate a thyme dimension. "It looks solved, but it just doesn't snmell solved..."

Re:

[Trogre (513942)]

Hmm, sounds like a job for the Sage [sagemath.org] math package.

Re:

[omeomi (675045)]

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.

Here you go, it's already been invented: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/rubik.s-cube/the-idiots-cube-256889.php [gizmodo.com]

Re:

[Thanshin (1188877)]

A real puzzle should involve:

- 4 dimensions.
- non-linear Time.
- curvature of space.
- non-linear mutation of laws of physics.
- inconstant truthness of mathematical axioms.

Re:

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

- non-linear mutation of laws of physics.

That's easy to deal with. You just remodulate the shield harmonics and then reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

One might argue...

[Thelasko (1196535)]

since the sides of the normal Rubik's cube are colored, it was already 4D.

Re:

[oodaloop (1229816)]

In which case this is 5D. Thanks a lot. As if it wasn't hard enough.

Re:

[Thelasko (1196535)]

If you time how long it takes you to solve it, the original is 5D.

I have a marvelous solution to the 4D Megaminx

[by Anonymous Coward]

which this margin is too narrow to contain. Strangely the solution implies that if you have 4 integers x,y,z>0 and n>2 then x^n+y^n!=z^n, but I don't know why the heck that would be important.

Now where...

[jd (1658)]

...have I seen this Megaminx puzzle before.... Oh yes, that's right, the US tax system. Seriously, this is wonderful. Once a problem is solved, then further work is merely optimization and refactoring. There's nothing new. Puzzles that have an algorithmic solution, but where the solution is unknown at this time, are interesting because they require discovery that is potentially within reach of anyone. Puzzles for which only a herustic definitely exists are also interesting for much the same reason. Problems with no solution, or where it is not yet possible to prove it is possible to find any solution, are interesting more because the work required might well involve whole new branches of mathematics being developed, real frontier work rather than simply filling in the gaps. Puzzles of this kind also draw people who might otherwise consider maths or science "boring" into those fields. Science outside of "profitable" fields like computer programming tend to rely on sparking the imagination of the next generation. There's no other reason to go into such a subject than the pursuit of knowledge, once you eliminate all status and monetary value.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I'm not sure, but the 4D software cubes I've played with before seem to be actually 4D. In your sliding puzzle analog, sliding a square on one side would have an effect in the orientation of the squares on the other sides. So in the 4D Rubik's cube model, turning a side on one of the cubes would also rotate something else on one of the other cubes. I can solve the 3x3 Rubik's original, and almost solve the 4x4 variant, but the 4D cubes are next to impossible in my mind.

Re:is the analogy self-evident?

[Culture20 (968837)]

Ever played the latest Prince of Persia (Sands of Time) series? They were 3D games where you had to use another dimension (time travel) to navigate puzzles because things were [un]available in different times. Heck, go back to Zelda series for a 2D game where travel to a dream-world allows more freedom of movement.

Re:Dag-nabbit

[The Master Control P (655590)]

Visualize our three dimensions as a bounded volume in 3-space. Then you can kind-of imagine the 4th and 5th spatial dimensions discreetly as 1- and 2-d arrays of such volumes.