3 ms·

Sooooo this is a hardware problem. Rubiks cubes are solved. So it doesn't have to do the 'minimum' moves as they say, might waste time working it out. But ev

Sooooo this is a hardware problem. Rubiks cubes are solved. So it doesn't have to do the 'minimum' moves as they say, might waste time working it out. But even so it probably does the minimum moves. Since I think that's mostly easy, just hard to prove. But either way, even if you add 5 moves to use a lookup table, back to hardware. For humans rubiks cubes are very easy, just memorise the instructions. Books have been out for decades. [Edit] it's interesting that they imply it might take more moves for physical reasons. Not sure if it's about destroying the cube or speed of turning.

MertsA 10y ago
>So it doesn't have to do the 'minimum' moves as they say, might waste time working it out. Maybe they're counting moving the top and bottom at the same time as two separate moves? I don't know why it wouldn't just be considered moving the middle but that might be what they're talking about. They mentioned that it doesn't do it in the minimal amount of moves on the basis that it would take longer so I'm assuming that's it. As far as the computational time needed to do so, it's absolutely trivial. This thing is built around a single microcontroller and it can handle 6 stepper motors, solving the cube, vision processing, and state tracking all by itself. The only thing impressive about this is how fast the cube is being manipulated but even that might not be too impressive considering the fact that they just attached stepper motors directly to the center piece of each face as opposed to using an unmodified Rubik's cube.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  >They mentioned that it doesn't do it in the minimal amount of moves on the basis that it would take longer so I'm assuming that's it. It might often be useful to spin opposite faces in different directions. Two moves by normal counting, but done in the time of one.

MertsA 10y ago

>So it doesn't have to do the 'minimum' moves as they say, might waste time working it out. Maybe they're counting moving the top and bottom at the same time as two separate moves? I don't know why it wouldn't just be considered moving the middle but that might be what they're talking about. They mentioned that it doesn't do it in the minimal amount of moves on the basis that it would take longer so I'm assuming that's it. As far as the computational time needed to do so, it's absolutely trivial. This thing is built around a single microcontroller and it can handle 6 stepper motors, solving the cube, vision processing, and state tracking all by itself. The only thing impressive about this is how fast the cube is being manipulated but even that might not be too impressive considering the fact that they just attached stepper motors directly to the center piece of each face as opposed to using an unmodified Rubik's cube.

Dylan16807 10y ago
>They mentioned that it doesn't do it in the minimal amount of moves on the basis that it would take longer so I'm assuming that's it. It might often be useful to spin opposite faces in different directions. Two moves by normal counting, but done in the time of one.