How high does your IQ have to be to solve a petaminx?

You could teach a 5 year old the algorithms behind it.

He would most likely need a cheat sheet but he could do it.

>>7770762
I mean actually deriving the algorithms yourself.
There's not much puzzle solving done when you're just given a walkthrough, right?

File: 1452234351537.jpg (34KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x400px

>>7770782

Do you mean "deriving the algorithms" on the fly or implementing the algorithms on the fly? Because on is possible but not the other. One is also dependent on the other. One takes hours, perhaps hundreds of hours for a noob while the other would take minutes, perhaps even seconds but most likely minutes.

>>7770757
What is the IQ of the person who created it and therefore must have been able to solve it? This would at least give an upper bound.

What does your autism spectrum have to be to want to bother?

File: GE5fJVw.sized.jpg (27KB, 640x427px)

27KB, 640x427px

>>7771290

>creating a puzzle
>being the most adept at solving it

>>7771290
Just because you invented the puzzle doesn't meant you know how to solve it.
It took Rubik a fucking month after he invented the 3x3 before he actually figured out how to solve it, or so I've heard.
>>7771288
I mean a person, who's never read a howto on this type of puzzle, sitting down in a closed room with a shuffled petaminx and solving said petaminx.
>>7771307
I'd like to at least fiddle with one...too bad they're priced in the $200 dollar range.

>>7770757
if you had never heard of rubiks cubes and the methods to solve them and managed to solve one of these within several months you would probably be genius tier

but these days the algos are so well known and documented that its really more of a memorization thing

>>7771352
>>7771367
Well I'm assuming these are being marketed and should actually be solvable. Are toys still sold that have unknown solutions? Anyway I was just trying to answer the question you spergs.

>>7771403
>Are toys still sold that have unknown solutions?
These kind of puzzles are always solvable. They are produced in solved form and then randomly shuffled. You could repeat the exact opposite sequence of actions to put it back in solved state.

File: 1452300318957.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px)

70KB, 1280x720px

>>7771367

Well if someone sat down and tried solving it for the very first time then they'd have to first derive a set of algorithm for common task solves and then combine those algorithms into a larger process to solve certain distinct sub puzzles.

Regardless, they'd first have to derive some algos that they repeat various times to work their way to a solution.

They cannot just start solving that sphere unless they're some sort of savant with a spatial IQ of 900 or something.

>>7771403

Are you serious? The picture shows it as being solved and every single move they make can be reversible back to the previous state. However, due to the complexity of this toy in relation to the 3x3 original rubiks cube I'd speculate that there's actually moar ways to arrive at a solution in brute numbers than with a 3X3. And in fact more types of shortcut algorithms will probably be necessary in order to optimise the solutions than would have been so with the 3X3 cube.