Re: Rubik's Cube Test: Reply and Notes
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "qqwref" <mzrg@v...>
> > > [ ] .. .. 5+ ways
> > (define "ways")
> That would be, do you know how to solve the cube in less than a
> using any of five different methods?sense
> > > [ ] .. in less than 20 seconds
> > > [ ] .. in less than 65 moves
> > for the above 2: I know how to do so but I can't do so (in the
> > that I know the sort of thing I would need to learn (algorithms,mean I
> > dexterity, mental speed, recognition etc.) but I that doesn't
> > am able to do all that stuff)meanings.
> Me too. Tough.
> > > [X] what BLD stands for
> > (assuming it's a particular piece/corner of the cube)
> I realized I overlooked that and that BLD has two different
> I propose to replace it with BRD to eliminate all possibleconfusion.
> > > [X] a 4x4x4
> > > [X] .. and can solve it
> > (not the physical one, but the computer one for sure)
> That doesn't count, though; everybody 'has' a computer one (unless
> programmed it yourself, in which case you can give yourself anit",
> auxiliary point or something). You can check off "and can solve
> though, even if you don't have one, as long as you can restore itto a
> proper solved state.No, I have a real-life one - but I can only solve it in under 2
minutes on a computer cube (like oinkleburger). Similarly, I have a
real 5x5x5 one but I can only solve it in under 2 minutes on
> Not sure what you mean - he didn't patent it, right?Are you sure he does? I thought he had one on all his subsequent
>That's the thing - he does have a patent. Any cube made for profit
>without his permission or his company's permission is a knockoff
puzzles (like magic and so on) but not on the original cube.
> > [X] in front of a crowdYes - it's very hard to concentrate if there's other clicking in the
> (at least if I am the only cubist there)
>Does that really make a difference?
background (as I found out last August).
> > [ ] but I don't want to open any of my MIB cubesAnd here's me thinking it might be a Men In Black Cube (like a
> (No idea what that means - MIB never appeared as an acronym above.)
>Sorry. Mint In Box. That is - do you have unopened cubes with mint
>packaging that you would use except that you don't want to open
Simpsons cube only with Will Smith and that they might be hyper-
> > [X] in my headBut I don't visualize it.
> Surely, that's what one does with blindfold cubing.
>I should remove this, unless I can think of some gibberish like "but
>you have to visualize it!"
> > [X] to any possible patternAs solving to any other state without looking/in one's head.
> It's basically the same problem
>As what? I mean, if you're into an advanced method you might have
>conceptual problems with solving to a Giant Meson or a 6-H pattern.
> > [X] by telling someone what moves to makeOh, I thought you meant I can't see it and tell someone what to do
> Same again
>Except when they can't see the cube. They do the moves you tell them
>to, and when they remove the blindfold they've solved it.
and they follow the instructions and it ends up solved. I'm not sure
it makes a difference if they can't see it.
>What do you mean, the full group is in fact a 2-generator group? II mean there are moves X, Y such that the cube group is just <X,Y> -
>mean the <U,R> group thing.
that is any move can be done using just X and Y.
>What do you mean exactly by the diameter of the orientationThe superflip takes 20 moves (HTM, a QTM result would be better) -
that's well known. Any other move that just involves flipping
edges/twisting corners in place can also be done in 20 or fewer
moves (HTM) so 20 is the diameter of the orientation subgroup in the
HTM. There are several positions requiring 20 moves (of the 66
classes which superflip the edges, 10 require 20 moves), but of the
94,518 classes I've recently got to the point where less than 20,000
require 20 moves and I'm sure that I can knock that down a fair bit
- --- In email@example.com, GameOfDeath2
>I'm sure he did. On January 30, 1975. That's why I was interviewed for
> > Not sure what you mean - he didn't patent it, right?
> >That's the thing - he does have a patent. Any cube made for profit
> >without his permission or his company's permission is a knockoff
> Are you sure he does? I thought he had one on all his subsequent
> puzzles (like magic and so on) but not on the original cube.
a small TV report about its 30th anniversary this January. See also: