There are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 ways a 3*3*3 rubiks cube

>>9050983
>tripfag

>>9050990
So you can't solve it?

File: 4D Solve.webm (3MB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x556px

A 3*3*3*3 cube has 1 756 772 880 709 135 843 168 526 079 081 025 059 614 484 630 149 557 651 477 156 021 733 236 798 970 168 550 600 274 887 650 082 354 207 129 600 000 000 000 000 different possible states and I can solve that

File: 1497987391114.jpg (58KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x375px

>>9050990
>>9051076
anon btfo by a tripfag how will he ever recover

File: 5D Final Algorithm.webm (3MB, 690x470px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 690x470px

>>9051292
A 3*3*3*3*3 cube has 701667712402950678588563925537442843125814486474172376339080083735282432570880422175614251163058229250653847841202640036019428140364685715598365298331873395846086528536260972280760386269552019118684785923871866118371825759785012234146827079564220427338910666898674313780003300502236858905700554243767722706512968255467907689651857607094055701717148055663687118563692897948419085505315326824962012039175406034820217915303954177226545938524363992267629090384186791766814569267200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible states but all those extra states is still more tedious than difficult

File: 3D Solve.webm (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>9051302
So yes I can

>>9051292
>>9051302
non-math major here, my brain just exploded.

>>9051317
Hey neither am I, I study physics. That said although there's lots of maths behind them I didn't do any to solve those, just took a beginner's 3*3*3 method and applied and adjusted it. The website for the 4D one pretty much has a step by step solution you can follow, then email in and go in their hall of fame

This vid is also good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhPH1369OWc&

>>9051076
>https://ruwix.com/the-rubiks-cube/how-to-solve-the-rubiks-cube-beginners-method/
Nothing hard about solving a rubix cube.

File: Overhang2.jpg (206KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1600x1600px

>>9051309
What is your favorite "rubik's cube style" puzzle?
I'm talking about things that are physically possible

Pic related is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yst7iGBkNpY

(I'm not saying it's my fav, i didn't pick a fav)

File: Rainbow Unequal Cube.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

>>9051341
Sadly don't own a massive collection, shipping to the UK can be expensive, but pic related is one of my favourites, mostly the same as a normal cube but centre rotation matters, tough obscuration to make recognisation harder and some shape shifting (which keeps away parity errors, my bane)

X-Cube I've had some fun with but can't solve. I refuse to look up a solution online but I can't get it out of a parity state so I'm just waiting on some Youtubers to upload a proper video on parity errors and how to get out of them in general

>>9051326
appreciate it anon, thanks!

>>9051373
No problem, if you do try and tackle it just start by moving single moves and seeing how the pieces move, then resetting and try seeing how the 2/3/4 colour pieces are made and how they move, it really is mostly the same as a normal 3D one but the interface is just abstract and takes getting used to, I'm trying to get used to the 6D interface now, its the same as the 7D anyways

>>9051309
>1:33
fucking brainlet

literally just move the stickers around jesus

>>9052146
this

>>9052124
My pb is 11.99s. That's just to show a bit about how the first layer is done

>>9052328
>11.99s
BRAINLET
R
A
I
N
L
E
T

>>9052335
I know you trolling but it's not like intelligence plays any role in being able to solve one, that's just a misconception

>>9052340
I can't really solve one without memorizing techniques 2bh. I have trouble thinking in 3D space.

>>9052352
Pretty much everyone does it by memorisation, only when you've been doing it for ages can you do bits of it by intuition. Even the 4.72s wr holder does half of it by a quick recognisation and execution of memorised algorithms

>>9052360
One reason I like the Petrus Method is the lack of memorisation for the first two layers. It's all done intuitively.

And you can get away with learning 3 or 4 simple sequences for the last layer (if you don't care for speed).

>>9050983
for any one given configuration you can solve it in a maximum of 20 moves. so its not that difficult.

Any average joe can learn to solve it.

Understanding why the algorithms work now that's a step above.

>>9052367
Yeah I believe the guys who compete for shortest solve end up learning tons of variations of loads of methods like Petrus, so they can intuitively look for patterns that are used in those methods. Like looking for a side with an already completed cross for CFOP but instead you're looking for different patterns

>>9052146
Gay

>ywn be able to perform 1LLL
why even bother trying?

Imagine a Rubik's cube that exists to be solved in the 5th dimension. You must first use whatever algorithm needed to solve a Rubik's cube in your own realm in under 0 seconds. From there it is easy. All you have to do is travel to your closest neighboring realm and find that same exact Rubik's cube and you must pick up the Rubik's cube and attempt to solve that. Be aware that, in this particular alternate reality, ceiling fans are placed on walls and trees all have copies of David bowie albums stapled to them. This is so that the trees can be categorically affiliated with recycle capability. For instance. His 1970-1973 albums would all indicate that the trees are not to be recycled in any way or it is a federal offense in over 904 sovereign states. Once the Rubik's cube is solved, you must travel back to your own realm and find this same board on 4chan. Post results.

>>9052606
Fug I did this last week but forgot to go to 4chan after

>>9051292
>calling that a 3*3*3*3 cube
>implying that it is a 4d rubiks cube
>implying that a 4D rubiks cubes would not be composed of 81 little hypercubes arranged in a 4D cubic lattice centered at the origin such that the coordinates of the centres of each little hypercube would be belonging to the set {-1, 0, 1}^4

whatever that STUPID thing is it is NOT a 4D rubiks cube.

I HATE LIARS who PRETEND they can represent high dimensional objects in pictures.

THAT IS NOT A 4D RUBIKS CUBE

WHY WOULD A 4D RUBIKS CUBE BE COMPOSED OF 6 CUBES ?

piss off you shitter

>>9052328
My pb is 11 as well. I never do that shit in public anymore because that was the biggest mistake in my life.

>>9052340
That's true. Doesn't take a genius to solve it but you start to see a pattern that it's mostly the nerdy "smart" kids that do it. That's because they have the dedication to learn it but someone who isn't very smart will watch one YouTube video and end up confused and just stop there and live their whole thinking that only smart people can solve Rubik's cubes

>>9052670
It was not composed of 6 cubes.

you can see 7 cubes in the picture, and the 8th cube is not seen because it's transparent and we are "looking through it"

File: Untitled.webm (3MB, 566x474px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 566x474px

>>9052670
>You
>In charge of counting
There are 7 cubes there and there's an 8th but it can't be seen in that view

A square is made from 4 lines
A cube from 6 squares that all meet at right angles, in a Rubik's cube each square is colour coded and cut into a 3x3 grid
A hypercube from 8 cubes meeting at right angles, to make it into a Rubik-like puzzle each colour coded cube gets cut into a 3x3x3 lattice.

WebM shows an algorithm called a Sune on a 4D cube, where it affects three times as many pieces

>>9052685
Pretty much yeah, or people who know nothing about it and never tried to solve it so think that people do it by analysing and thinking instead of just remembering

>>9052711
You can solve it by discovering your own algorithms instead of googling for existing algorithms.

But even then, it's a process of trial and error. i mean, you still need to know every solving algorithm needs to have the sum of the twists be either a multiple of 4 or 0 (counting every clockwise move as a positive integer and every counter clockwise move as a negative integer).

File: Untitled.webm (3MB, 1172x706px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1172x706px

>>9052670
It's the 5D cube which is made up of hypercubes, each colour coded and split into a 3x3x3x3 grid of little hypercubes.

I'm not claiming to be able to 'visualise' or have any form of intuition about higher dimensions. But when you play with that software you recognise why its a higher dimensional cube, then you just play it like vidya using mostly the same rules of a normal Rubik's cube

Unfortunately the 5D one really fucks the interframe compression for WebMs

>>9052146
if it doesn't have stickers, pull the whole thing apart and put it back together again.

>>9052685
Or you can just learn Group Theory

>>9052935
Learning group theory won't make you able to solve a Rubik's cube like learning physics won't make you able to throw accurately

>>9051292
>and I can solve that
yeah, me too. I am in hall of fame.

>>9052379
Does that include center turns?

>>9051309
>two look oll
cubelet confirmed

>>9052734
What program is this?

File: 1467492503174.jpg (5KB, 206x245px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 206x245px

>>9055584
It's one of only 4 cases I don't know

>>9055783
Magic Cube 5D

i never liked the 1gorillion combination == difficult game meme. A soccer game has an infinite number of combinations. Does that make it a difficult game?
solving those cubes just comes down to memorizing a handful of algos.

>>9052384
group theory underrated

>>9051292
Can you solve 3*3*3*3*3?