Rubiks revenege

>>8280297
you've bricked it you tool. it cant be solved like that. switch those wrong pieces around, scramble it and try again

I've never done a 4x4x4, but I believe what you have here is a "parity error". It arises when you solve the centers and try to solve the rest as a 3x3x3. I'm sorry, but I don't know the remedy to this.

I "learned" to do this on my own a long long time ago. I don't count it though because I would get parity errors like this (there's another one that is really easy and way more intuitive to fix) and then rescramble and resolve until the error doesn't show up. I eventually googled how to fix the parity and just memorized that. Now I don't remember how it's done. Maybe try taking out the "correct" yellow/blue edge and putting it (upside down) where the "incorrect" orange/blue edge is using the other bad edge pair as a placeholder.

File: 1394433365147.gif (59KB, 250x230px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 250x230px

>>8280297
You have a "Case 3 (Oriented Case)". Look at the following page and just pick an algorithm. Should be easy if you know your cube notation.

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_Parity_Algorithms#Case_3_.28Oriented_Case.29

The easiest way to solve a 4x4x4 is to assemble colors of the cube so that it turns into 3x3x3 cube and then almost solve it as a 3x3x3. Because the cube is even, there can be parities and shit.

>>8280304
No, the cube is fine. Even cubes can have parities like that. It would be a different case if it were an odd cube.

>>8280297
I hate this from the 4x4, theres no way to avoid the parities.

5x5 (professors) is more fun anyway. And if you take your time you can avoid the parities

File: Void_cube.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

>>8280434
>I hate this from the 4x4, theres no way to avoid the parities.
I wish I understood why even cubes get such parities. All I know is that they do. However, I do know that 3x3x3 void cubes (pic) can suffer from similar parities that even cubes suffer from. Probably a relation there with how the solver defines the face colors.

>5x5 (professors) is more fun anyway. And if you take your time you can avoid the parities
Not only that but odd cubes also aren't built like shit. Even cubes need special mechs to rotate properly.

File: YJ-Axis-Cube-White-Base[1].jpg (68KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x600px

Is there any tips on solving an axis cube? Or is it essentially spending the next month comprehending the shit?

GF got it for my birthday and she's pretty happy that I haven't gotten anywhere on my own with it

>>8280460
jesus christ

File: the_power_of_the_axis_cube_by_zigzagmag-d6ydqdi[1].png (707KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1024x512px

>>8280467
am I cringe? Or are you reacting to the cube?

>>8280471
the cube bro. like the rubics isn't hard enough

>>8280460
>GF

>>8280489
im in a relationship with science, so dont worry you can take me seriously

>>8280471
it's just a rubiks cube cut in a weird way.
it's fucking easy.
i'm getting it in a few days, it should be coming in the mail.
I'm excited to solve it immediately.
The skewb, on the other hand, seems easy but is proving rather difficult.
Any tips for that?

>>8280444
Even cubes have no fixed centres and no middle edges. The lack of fixed centres allows for PP, as implicit slice turns can inject a 4-cycle in permutation(Try to solve a 3^3 cube with 4 centres rotated 1 quarter turn). OP exists for all large cubes, but on odd ones it is solved before 3*3*3 stage because the middle edge is immune to OP.

>>8280752
Since youre a dick about the axis cube (which I doubt you even have).

The skewb is a fucking sub 10 sec cube for everyone. It's literally one algorithm (if you can even call it an algorithm). That algorithm is fucking the same 2 moves repeated.

You fucking cunt ass retarded bitch

>>8281178
>doubt you even have
meant, doubt youll solve "immediately"


still, you fucking shitlord

>>8280411
This is also possible with a 5x5x5 if the squares don't have orientation markings.

File: moyu-huanchang-crna_1024x1024.jpg?v=1429233102.png (1MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x900px

>>8281200
Or to be more clear, you can exchange these two pairs of subcubes.

>>8281200
>>8281229
I suppose so. I usually solve a 5x5x5 by turning them into a 3x3x3. The center cubies swapped makes sense though.

>>8281229
This can be avoided though if you pay attention during edge pairing right?

Unless Im getting lucky, the last 5 times I solved the thing I had no pairties. Thought I was avoiding it successfully.

Are the 6x6 and up the same as the 5x5? Work the middles, pair edges, 3x3 solve?

now solve this

File: dn20636-1_500.jpg (126KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x375px

>>8282862

File: 51p4nncSfCL.png (317KB, 477x500px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 477x500px

>>8282813
It sounds like that algorithm ought to leave you a parity at the edge pairing stage 50% of the time, but it's hard to say without knowing specifically what you're doing. Easiest way to find out would be to start from a cube with just the swapped pieces, and see what happens when you try to solve the cube with that algorithm the same as any other cube. You can get to such a state by rotating the second/fourth layer one turn (pic related), then moving as many pieces as possible back to their proper positions using sequences of moves that move three subcubes in a cycle.

>Are the 6x6 and up the same as the 5x5? Work the middles, pair edges, 3x3 solve?
All of these puzzles can be solved in arbitrary order. I'm not into speedcubing, so I couldn't tell you what's fastest.

>>8282862
>>8282865
If you know how to solve a 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cube then bigger cubes aren't difficult at all. It's just more pieces you have to move around.

What's a parity?

Should I learn how to solve a rubik's cube, /sci/?

Anyone knows how to solve the skewb ultime? I am lost, I do not even know where to start.
Will post pic related when I get home

>>8283374
if you want to, faggot.

It's all about remembering certain patterns, I doubt anyone has ever really solved a Rubiks Cube without looking them up

File: 20151115044606[1].jpg (26KB, 309x340px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 309x340px

>>8283383
I agree with normal cubes. But puzzles like the Skewb, Dino, and pyraminx are very intuitive. Really any "corner turning" puzzle.

Even the 2x2 if you are clever. Past that though it gets way to complicated to solve them intuitively or without outside help

File: skewbUlt.jpg (56KB, 605x621px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 605x621px

>>8283375
Skewb Ultimate? Mefferts version?
Most methods only have 1 algorithm, and its similar to the regular skewb.

Start with a layer and it will become intuitive. Pic related shows what a layer is. Square is the center, circles are corners

File: Even order parities.jpg (600KB, 1474x1600px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1474x1600px

>>8283320
In general, it's a case that appears on cube that wouldn't normally appear on a 3x3x3 cube.

Pic related is an example. If you were solving this 4x4x4 cube as a 3x3x3, this would be a case that would never appear on a normal 3x3x3 cube.

>>8283374
Maybe.

>>8283383
I'm sure there are some people who have done it. That takes a lot of work though. On top of that, you'd be trying to reinvent the wheel. Whatever you might come up with won't be as good as solutions you find on the internet (in terms of speed and good algs).

File: streetSigns.jpg (38KB, 388x594px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 388x594px

>>8283320
happens because there is only one correct place for a piece on a 3x3, but on 4x4s and up there can be multiple perceived correct positions

some cubes have little orientation marks that help you avoid the parities

>>8283497
I have. I'd argue anyone who looks it up hasn't really solved the puzzle.

>>8283502
>reinvent the wheel
It's a puzzle, not an engineering problem.

>>8283528
>I have. I'd argue anyone who looks it up hasn't really solved the puzzle.
meant to quote >>8283383 not >>8283497

>>8283532
a liar and stupid

>>8283528
>It's a puzzle, not an engineering problem.
Creating algorithms on the fly is not an intuitive process. And yes, it is reinventing the wheel when good solutions to the problem already exist on the web.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't try though if they want a good challenge though.

>>8283497
I think it's wrongheaded to think of the 3x3x3 as a special case. The same general techniques work for all sizes of cubes.

What these parity situations really are, at least the ones posted in this thread so far, are situations where the permutation of a certain types of subcube is an odd permutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_a_permutation

For example, in >>8280297 and >>8283497 the two cubes must be exchanged. That's an odd permutation. It's very easy to find sequences of moves that perform a 3-cycle of pieces, but that's an even permutation. You'll never compose these to exchange just two pieces.

You can resolve this by making a single twist which effects an odd permutation of the correct type of cubes, then fixing everything that the move broke.

This situation is not unique to cubes larger than 3x3x3. In the 3x3x3, there is the case where two corner pieces and two edge pieces must be exchanged. The corner pieces and edge pieces are separate types (you can't move a corner piece to an edge or vice versa), and for each type, the permutation you need to do is an odd one. You can never solve this by composing 3-cycles or the relatively easy-to-find double exchange of two corner pieces, since those are even permutations. But a single twist is a 4-cycle of both corner pieces and edge pieces, and a 4-cycle is an odd permutation. Once you do that, you've put the cube in a state where you can easily fix everything you've disturbed.

>>8283554
>Creating algorithms on the fly is not an intuitive process.
It's quite simple once you understand the principle behind it. I didn't get it until I worked on the 5x5x5, though.

>>8283554
>Creating algorithms on the fly is not an intuitive process
sure it is, it's literally solving a problem by instruction, the talent humans are known for

>>8283633
Solving by instruction wasn't what we were talking about though. We were talking about a person just solving the cube by themselves with no external help (another person or the internet). Being able to manipulate a cube on your own to create new algs takes practice and is not an obvious process.

>>8283432
To be honest I have never solved the regular skewb, it was a preset but I'll try.
Thanks anon