9 ms·

2D Rubik’s Cube solution visualization

275 points by iamben 4y ago

greenbit 4y ago
Was trying to make sense of that solve, but couldn't see any algorithmic thing happening. Either that's the craziest method I ever saw, or it's just a reversal of a random scramble. Regardless, none of that takes away from the nifty 2D projection technique!
- noroot 4y ago
  I also wondered the same and could not recognize any of the normal speed cubing methods.
- exitb 4y ago
  There are algorithms that are more efficient than the typical speed cubing methods, but are based on large amounts of computation, rather than pattern matching, thus unfit for humans.
  - karmakaze 4y ago
    If it depends on large amounts of computation, how can it be considered more efficient? If it's precomputed, then it's again pattern matching. If by algorithm you mean the sequence of rotations, then yes there is a small upper bound that speedcubers typically exceed in solving any specific randomization. [I never liked that some call a fixed sequence of moves an algorithm.] Rubik's Cube solution unlocked by memorising 3915 final move sequences[0]. > For the first time, a speedcuber has demonstrated a solution to the Rubik’s cube that combines the two final steps of the puzzle’s solution into one [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2334632-rubiks-cube-solution-unlocked-by-memorising-3915-final-move-sequences/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2334632-rubiks-cube-sol...
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > If it depends on large amounts of computation, how can it be considered more efficient? More efficient in terms of rotations necessary to solve the cube.
  - koide 4y ago
    I guess you mean efficient in that they produce a shorter (or even the shortest) sequence of moves to solve a given scramble. But if it takes 5 minutes of computation to produce the solve, then in practice they are not yet very efficient.
    - MayeulC 4y ago
      it depends how much you value a move, vs a computer instruction. Get a faster computer and a larger cube, the trade-off is likely worth it. A rubik's cube isn't such an intractable problem, I doubt a computer can't solve it faster than a human: in the worst case, they can rely on the same algorithm. Then, they can try to find shortcuts or just shorter paths. I always thought minimizing the number of moves was the goal, hence "more efficient" made sense to me too.
    - exitb 4y ago
      By computation in this case I mean evaluating the state of the cube after a series of moves. It’s extremely difficult for a human, but a computer can simulate millions of moves in a fraction of a second. So realistically, any modern computer can find a low rotation count solution to any scramble almost instantaneously.
yamrzou 4y ago
Someone linked [1] an interesting tool in the replies: MagicTile - Geometrical and Topological Analogues of Rubik's Cube - http://roice3.org/magictile/ http://roice3.org/magictile/ "If you want to try solving the Rubik's Cube this way, you should try @roice713's MagicTile. You can choose the Rubik's cube among hundreds of puzzles. The stereographic projection makes it look like the animation in this post." [1] https://twitter.com/mananself/status/1595132523264167936 https://twitter.com/mananself/status/1595132523264167936
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > The stereographic projection makes it look like the animation in this post. Couldn't be further from the truth. The image in the tweet is a huge improvement over the stereographic projection.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    It is the same thing, with two tiny changes: 1. different-size projected squares are replaced with same-size circles 2. the tweet's image puts the north pole on a corner; the projection on the upthread link puts the north pole on the face. Keeping the corner at the north pole does make it easier to understand, but it's still a stereographic projection.
- lupire 4y ago
  Mathologer video going in depth on MagicTile and Rubik's cube variants like Kleij Bottle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=DvZnh7-nslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=DvZnh7-nslo
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  https://github.com/HactarCE/Hyperspeedcube https://github.com/HactarCE/Hyperspeedcube enables you to solve 4D cubes, the exploded visualization is standard but I think it is pretty cool here is it in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCvn9-JvXgY&list=PLKwXjCUFqOBHB2I6ZS3lLnsbAtyTZSJPh&index=13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCvn9-JvXgY&list=PLKwXjCUFqO...
kirjavascript 4y ago
another 2D visualisation of the rubiks cube that is popularly used for computer simulation speedsolving is qcube[1] despite not being able to see all sides of the cube, it's surprisingly easy to solve on, as you essentially see the same stickers that you would in real life. there is even an IRC based version! [1] https://mzrg.com/js/qcube-v2.html https://mzrg.com/js/qcube-v2.html
- yamrzou 4y ago
  How does it work? I couldn't understand keyboard controls.
  - kirjavascript 4y ago
    here's an image of the keymap: https://cube.garron.us/keyboard_layout/files/heise_simulator_keyboard_layout.png https://cube.garron.us/keyboard_layout/files/heise_simulator... and an explanation of the notation: https://jperm.net/3x3/moves https://jperm.net/3x3/moves
jbj 4y ago
on a similar note, you can get yourself a 4D rubiks cube (projected into 3D) It is not a 3x3x3x3 but 2x2x2x2. It looks like Melinda (the inventor) have made them easier to obtain. back when I got one, 3D printed parts, magnets, and coating all came from different sources, but absolutely worth it, they are very unique and work well. link: https://superliminal.com/cube/2x2x2x2/ https://superliminal.com/cube/2x2x2x2/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jbj 4y ago
  too late back here to edit, so just another post to share another implementation of 2x2x2x2 I have come across: https://github.com/roman-tershak/4DMC-Model https://github.com/roman-tershak/4DMC-Model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0vkK_z0gM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0vkK_z0gM
- _puk 4y ago
  Thanks for the link! I'm now on the waiting list for the next batch (couple of weeks to months), and apparently the new injection moulded version is way better, and a lot cheaper!
  - jbj 4y ago
    yes, that is a good saving, The 3D printed plastic by itself is around USD 140, and the magnets around 40. Here are the links I used back in 2018: https://www.shapeways.com/product/965KNUESR/melinda-s-2x2x2x2 https://www.shapeways.com/product/965KNUESR/melinda-s-2x2x2x... http://www.gaussboys.com/store/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?q=D0402 http://www.gaussboys.com/store/index.php/catalogsearch/resul...
andirk 4y ago
This is so beautiful. Changing dimensions is often mind boggling even though it makes sense.
- fouronnes3 4y ago
  4DToys is a VR game where you can "physically" play with 4D objects - as a 3D being of course, so you only get so see and touch one 3D slice, but the object is free to move in 4D (there's an actual 4D physics engine). There's something out of this world to hold a 4D cube in your hand and rotate it. You also get a software cursor to move yourself along the fourth spatial dimension.
benniomars 4y ago
How is this easier to understand? And is the Rubik's Cuber hard to understand at all? You got 26 cubes in 3D space that need to go to their correct locations. They can move in 3 axis. They are color coded for recognition. I think anyone is able to solve the first 2 layers intuitively. Just start by following one of those 26 little cubes and see how it moves about.
- jb1991 4y ago
  Exactly this. It's not just rubik's cubes, it's also very easy to, for example, use just a few lines of bash to implement a stable, featureful sync tool like dropbox. Everyone's always making things seem more complicated than they really are.
  - detritus 4y ago
    I genuinely can't tell if you're being sardonic here. This being HN, I guess I have to assume you're being earnest.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Mentioning Dropbox is the key to it being sarcastic. Like someone saying “less space than a nomad. Lame.”
    - jb1991 4y ago
      yep sorry, the Dropbox reference is a long-standing HN inside joke about comments like these. You can probably search to find the whole history of this reference, it's rather amusing.
      - pvg 4y ago
        long-standing HN inside joke It's more of a worn-out trope by this point and better skipped. Just sneerfully flag lame comments.
        4y ago
bitslayer 4y ago
The corners appear as triangles in the figure. I counted all the triangles I could find and was confused because I only saw 7. But then I realized the 8th is around the outside of the whole figure!
infamousclyde 4y ago
It's a spectacular visualization, kudos to the author. However, I'm not sure it made it particularly easier to understand, although I know that is subjective. Something that helped me was [1]. It took me from being someone who could not solve at all, to actually being quite good-- in the 13-20 second range. The beginner method listed on the site can easily put you in the sub-minute territory. [1]: http://badmephisto.com/ http://badmephisto.com/
- gilleain 4y ago
  I like this guy: > Q: I Added you as a friend but you didn't accept. WHY DO YOU HATE ME? > A: I dont accept any friend invites. But maybe I still hate you, who knows?
  - rwnspace 4y ago
    You'll like him even more if you know who Andrej Karpathy is, as they're the same person.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rwnspace 4y ago
As someone who as held national records in the sport of speedcubing, I don't feel this makes it easier to understand, at least if you are going for an instrumental understanding of how to solve it. I think the community are pretty good at teaching that now! But it does look extremely cool. My favourite one-liner for improving understanding is something roughly like 'solve areas made of pieces, not faces made of stickers'. Very much clearer when you have a cube to take apart and put together in the order you would solve them.
- phkahler 4y ago
  My feeble record is just under one minute. But I spent a lot of time thinking about how to represent the cube in a computer. Yes think pieces, not stickers. But for a long time I thought pieces had position and orientation. More recently I noticed that if we imagine each piece of a solved cube being connected to the cube center (an imaginary extension of the piece) it becomes clear that rotation is the only real freedom, and if a piece is in the correct orientation it is automatically in the right position! The reverse is not true of course. I don't think this is helpful for humans solving, but for computers it largely takes position out of it. Position does determine which pieces are rotated by any given move though.
- iamben 4y ago
  Agree with you completely - I can't see how this would help me, but it's very cool to watch! And congrats on the records! I've managed to get just below the minute mark a handful of times and remain in complete awe of anyone sub 60 seconds!
  - rwnspace 4y ago
    Thank you, very kind. I myself am in awe of the current best solvers, the difference between my previously world-class average and the records now is massive.
slim 4y ago
I never wanted to learn how to solve it, because finiding my way to solve it is the game. who's like me? I bought a rubik's cube when my son was born, because I wanted something to play that was not my phone while he was on my lap. 3 years later I'm able to complete one face in like 5 min consistently. still a long way to solve it, new techniques to discover and hours of play in sight. yay!
- lupire 4y ago
  It's a huge leap to get past the first layer. Your curt rate of progress suggests that your strategy will not solve the cube in your lifetime. And it's almost impossible to do it without taking notes on paper or computer. (If that were doable, their wouldn't be so many walkthroughs). Solving the cube is a hard applied group theory "homework" problem. This video explains the principles of solving a Rubik's cube on your own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-NL76uQOpI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-NL76uQOpI0
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  The [Heise method](https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html) is essentially that, but formalized. No algorithms to memorize, just understanding how the cube works and using that to solve it.
- robot_no_421 4y ago
  It's still fun once you learn how to solve it. But fun in a different way. You're treating it as a puzzle to solve. But once you learn how to solve it, it ceases to be a puzzle and it becomes a really fun fidget toy. Seeing how fast you can solve it is enjoyable and gives your fingers some great dexterity exercise. I have one on my desk and when I want to take a break from coding I'll scramble it up and fidget around with it for a bit.
- gregfjohnson 4y ago
  Given that you can solve the top layer, there is a really nice hack that lets you work out the rest of the puzzle. Say your top layer is completely solved, except that one of the top side pieces is flipped 180 degrees. You know a sequence of moves that will fix that piece, to solve the top layer. If you do that sequence and then run the same sequence backwards, you will get the cube back to the same place, first with that side piece fixed, and then rotated 180 degrees again. But here is the trick: Before you run the sequence backwards, rotate the top! You will restore the cube exactly to where it was, except that now TWO of the top side pieces will have been flipped 180 degrees! This is referred to as a commutator operation, and is what Ryan Heise explains. Variants of this trick will let you rotate two corners in opposite directions, and re-position two top pieces and one bottom piece. One last thing: when solving the bottom layer, you may find yourself unable to re-position cubies into place using 3-way moves. Just rotate the top layer 90 degrees and you will then be able to proceed to completion.
988747 4y ago
If I understand it correctly, this visualization does not take into account the constraints of some faces being physically tied to each other, by being on the same cube. So, while it can show the process of solving cube, it is not a replacement for the cube (i.e. you can't use it as a simulation to try to figure out new algorithms)
- nsilvestri 4y ago
  It does, but not elegantly: when a non-slice move is made, you have to rotate the 3x3 group at the center. You see it in the animation.
joshspankit 4y ago
Kind of reminds me of playing the 4D Rubik’s cube
kazinator 4y ago
I saw this on Mastodon three hours before the $8Chan link was posted here. https://piaille.fr/@Mnaudin/109389968985022395 https://piaille.fr/@Mnaudin/109389968985022395 It's a really poor representation, for specific reasons: - it doesn't convey how the corner and edge colors are constrained into moving together, due to being mounted on the same cube piece. - doesn't convey how the center face pieces stay in place relative to each other. - certain rotations "cheat": the dots dance around, not staying on their orbit tracks.
- cvoss 4y ago
  But the actual 3D Rubik's Cube is also a really poor representation, because at all times you can only see at most half of the cube. I guess the point of making a 2D representation is to correct that problem. I can much more easily superimpose the missing connections you have mentioned in my mind's eye onto this 2D representation than I can remember the 3D layout of the half of the cube I can't see. Not everyone's brain works that way, but mine does.
wantsanagent 4y ago
Cube solving is a path finding problem. The way to learn path finding problem is to understand how your actions move you through the space you're navigating. One of the most effective ways to learn these relationships is to work backwards. Starting from the goal, take a step away, then step back. Then take two steps away, then those steps back. Then take different steps away and steps back. As you move farther and farther from the goal you get an explosion of options that quickly requires deduction of strategies over memorization of all paths back to the goal. This can help ground learning the well known techniques for cube solving. This visualization might help with that process, but just playing solutions from start to finish (IMO) doesn't.
- taeric 4y ago
  I found it somewhat fun to think of it in terms of permutations. https://taeric.github.io/cube-permutations-1.html https://taeric.github.io/cube-permutations-1.html is where I started with the idea. Never went too far with it, sadly. I do have my own 2d view of the rubics cube there. Was fun to watch the squares jump around. :D
raintrees 4y ago
https://nitter.net/jagarikin/status/1593771091738374144 https://nitter.net/jagarikin/status/1593771091738374144

275 points by iamben 4y ago

Was trying to make sense of that solve, but couldn't see any algorithmic thing happening. Either that's the craziest method I ever saw, or it's just a reversal of a random scramble. Regardless, none of that takes away from the nifty 2D projection technique!

noroot 4y ago
I also wondered the same and could not recognize any of the normal speed cubing methods.
exitb 4y ago
There are algorithms that are more efficient than the typical speed cubing methods, but are based on large amounts of computation, rather than pattern matching, thus unfit for humans.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  If it depends on large amounts of computation, how can it be considered more efficient? If it's precomputed, then it's again pattern matching. If by algorithm you mean the sequence of rotations, then yes there is a small upper bound that speedcubers typically exceed in solving any specific randomization. [I never liked that some call a fixed sequence of moves an algorithm.] Rubik's Cube solution unlocked by memorising 3915 final move sequences[0]. > For the first time, a speedcuber has demonstrated a solution to the Rubik’s cube that combines the two final steps of the puzzle’s solution into one [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2334632-rubiks-cube-solution-unlocked-by-memorising-3915-final-move-sequences/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2334632-rubiks-cube-sol...
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > If it depends on large amounts of computation, how can it be considered more efficient? More efficient in terms of rotations necessary to solve the cube.
- koide 4y ago
  I guess you mean efficient in that they produce a shorter (or even the shortest) sequence of moves to solve a given scramble. But if it takes 5 minutes of computation to produce the solve, then in practice they are not yet very efficient.
  - MayeulC 4y ago
    it depends how much you value a move, vs a computer instruction. Get a faster computer and a larger cube, the trade-off is likely worth it. A rubik's cube isn't such an intractable problem, I doubt a computer can't solve it faster than a human: in the worst case, they can rely on the same algorithm. Then, they can try to find shortcuts or just shorter paths. I always thought minimizing the number of moves was the goal, hence "more efficient" made sense to me too.
  - exitb 4y ago
    By computation in this case I mean evaluating the state of the cube after a series of moves. It’s extremely difficult for a human, but a computer can simulate millions of moves in a fraction of a second. So realistically, any modern computer can find a low rotation count solution to any scramble almost instantaneously.

yamrzou 4y ago

Someone linked [1] an interesting tool in the replies: MagicTile - Geometrical and Topological Analogues of Rubik's Cube - http://roice3.org/magictile/ http://roice3.org/magictile/ "If you want to try solving the Rubik's Cube this way, you should try @roice713's MagicTile. You can choose the Rubik's cube among hundreds of puzzles. The stereographic projection makes it look like the animation in this post." [1] https://twitter.com/mananself/status/1595132523264167936 https://twitter.com/mananself/status/1595132523264167936

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> The stereographic projection makes it look like the animation in this post. Couldn't be further from the truth. The image in the tweet is a huge improvement over the stereographic projection.
- klyrs 4y ago
  It is the same thing, with two tiny changes: 1. different-size projected squares are replaced with same-size circles 2. the tweet's image puts the north pole on a corner; the projection on the upthread link puts the north pole on the face. Keeping the corner at the north pole does make it easier to understand, but it's still a stereographic projection.
lupire 4y ago
Mathologer video going in depth on MagicTile and Rubik's cube variants like Kleij Bottle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=DvZnh7-nslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=DvZnh7-nslo
nextaccountic 4y ago
https://github.com/HactarCE/Hyperspeedcube https://github.com/HactarCE/Hyperspeedcube enables you to solve 4D cubes, the exploded visualization is standard but I think it is pretty cool here is it in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCvn9-JvXgY&list=PLKwXjCUFqOBHB2I6ZS3lLnsbAtyTZSJPh&index=13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCvn9-JvXgY&list=PLKwXjCUFqO...

kirjavascript 4y ago

another 2D visualisation of the rubiks cube that is popularly used for computer simulation speedsolving is qcube[1] despite not being able to see all sides of the cube, it's surprisingly easy to solve on, as you essentially see the same stickers that you would in real life. there is even an IRC based version! [1] https://mzrg.com/js/qcube-v2.html https://mzrg.com/js/qcube-v2.html

yamrzou 4y ago
How does it work? I couldn't understand keyboard controls.
- kirjavascript 4y ago
  here's an image of the keymap: https://cube.garron.us/keyboard_layout/files/heise_simulator_keyboard_layout.png https://cube.garron.us/keyboard_layout/files/heise_simulator... and an explanation of the notation: https://jperm.net/3x3/moves https://jperm.net/3x3/moves

jbj 4y ago

on a similar note, you can get yourself a 4D rubiks cube (projected into 3D) It is not a 3x3x3x3 but 2x2x2x2. It looks like Melinda (the inventor) have made them easier to obtain. back when I got one, 3D printed parts, magnets, and coating all came from different sources, but absolutely worth it, they are very unique and work well. link: https://superliminal.com/cube/2x2x2x2/ https://superliminal.com/cube/2x2x2x2/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jbj 4y ago
too late back here to edit, so just another post to share another implementation of 2x2x2x2 I have come across: https://github.com/roman-tershak/4DMC-Model https://github.com/roman-tershak/4DMC-Model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0vkK_z0gM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0vkK_z0gM
_puk 4y ago
Thanks for the link! I'm now on the waiting list for the next batch (couple of weeks to months), and apparently the new injection moulded version is way better, and a lot cheaper!
- jbj 4y ago
  yes, that is a good saving, The 3D printed plastic by itself is around USD 140, and the magnets around 40. Here are the links I used back in 2018: https://www.shapeways.com/product/965KNUESR/melinda-s-2x2x2x2 https://www.shapeways.com/product/965KNUESR/melinda-s-2x2x2x... http://www.gaussboys.com/store/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?q=D0402 http://www.gaussboys.com/store/index.php/catalogsearch/resul...

andirk 4y ago

This is so beautiful. Changing dimensions is often mind boggling even though it makes sense.

fouronnes3 4y ago
4DToys is a VR game where you can "physically" play with 4D objects - as a 3D being of course, so you only get so see and touch one 3D slice, but the object is free to move in 4D (there's an actual 4D physics engine). There's something out of this world to hold a 4D cube in your hand and rotate it. You also get a software cursor to move yourself along the fourth spatial dimension.

benniomars 4y ago

How is this easier to understand? And is the Rubik's Cuber hard to understand at all? You got 26 cubes in 3D space that need to go to their correct locations. They can move in 3 axis. They are color coded for recognition. I think anyone is able to solve the first 2 layers intuitively. Just start by following one of those 26 little cubes and see how it moves about.

jb1991 4y ago
Exactly this. It's not just rubik's cubes, it's also very easy to, for example, use just a few lines of bash to implement a stable, featureful sync tool like dropbox. Everyone's always making things seem more complicated than they really are.
- detritus 4y ago
  I genuinely can't tell if you're being sardonic here. This being HN, I guess I have to assume you're being earnest.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Mentioning Dropbox is the key to it being sarcastic. Like someone saying “less space than a nomad. Lame.”
  - jb1991 4y ago
    yep sorry, the Dropbox reference is a long-standing HN inside joke about comments like these. You can probably search to find the whole history of this reference, it's rather amusing.
    - pvg 4y ago
      long-standing HN inside joke It's more of a worn-out trope by this point and better skipped. Just sneerfully flag lame comments.
      - 4y ago

bitslayer 4y ago

The corners appear as triangles in the figure. I counted all the triangles I could find and was confused because I only saw 7. But then I realized the 8th is around the outside of the whole figure!

infamousclyde 4y ago

It's a spectacular visualization, kudos to the author. However, I'm not sure it made it particularly easier to understand, although I know that is subjective. Something that helped me was [1]. It took me from being someone who could not solve at all, to actually being quite good-- in the 13-20 second range. The beginner method listed on the site can easily put you in the sub-minute territory. [1]: http://badmephisto.com/ http://badmephisto.com/

gilleain 4y ago
I like this guy: > Q: I Added you as a friend but you didn't accept. WHY DO YOU HATE ME? > A: I dont accept any friend invites. But maybe I still hate you, who knows?
- rwnspace 4y ago
  You'll like him even more if you know who Andrej Karpathy is, as they're the same person.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rwnspace 4y ago

As someone who as held national records in the sport of speedcubing, I don't feel this makes it easier to understand, at least if you are going for an instrumental understanding of how to solve it. I think the community are pretty good at teaching that now! But it does look extremely cool. My favourite one-liner for improving understanding is something roughly like 'solve areas made of pieces, not faces made of stickers'. Very much clearer when you have a cube to take apart and put together in the order you would solve them.

phkahler 4y ago
My feeble record is just under one minute. But I spent a lot of time thinking about how to represent the cube in a computer. Yes think pieces, not stickers. But for a long time I thought pieces had position and orientation. More recently I noticed that if we imagine each piece of a solved cube being connected to the cube center (an imaginary extension of the piece) it becomes clear that rotation is the only real freedom, and if a piece is in the correct orientation it is automatically in the right position! The reverse is not true of course. I don't think this is helpful for humans solving, but for computers it largely takes position out of it. Position does determine which pieces are rotated by any given move though.
iamben 4y ago
Agree with you completely - I can't see how this would help me, but it's very cool to watch! And congrats on the records! I've managed to get just below the minute mark a handful of times and remain in complete awe of anyone sub 60 seconds!
- rwnspace 4y ago
  Thank you, very kind. I myself am in awe of the current best solvers, the difference between my previously world-class average and the records now is massive.

slim 4y ago

I never wanted to learn how to solve it, because finiding my way to solve it is the game. who's like me? I bought a rubik's cube when my son was born, because I wanted something to play that was not my phone while he was on my lap. 3 years later I'm able to complete one face in like 5 min consistently. still a long way to solve it, new techniques to discover and hours of play in sight. yay!

lupire 4y ago
It's a huge leap to get past the first layer. Your curt rate of progress suggests that your strategy will not solve the cube in your lifetime. And it's almost impossible to do it without taking notes on paper or computer. (If that were doable, their wouldn't be so many walkthroughs). Solving the cube is a hard applied group theory "homework" problem. This video explains the principles of solving a Rubik's cube on your own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-NL76uQOpI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-NL76uQOpI0
SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
The [Heise method](https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html) is essentially that, but formalized. No algorithms to memorize, just understanding how the cube works and using that to solve it.
robot_no_421 4y ago
It's still fun once you learn how to solve it. But fun in a different way. You're treating it as a puzzle to solve. But once you learn how to solve it, it ceases to be a puzzle and it becomes a really fun fidget toy. Seeing how fast you can solve it is enjoyable and gives your fingers some great dexterity exercise. I have one on my desk and when I want to take a break from coding I'll scramble it up and fidget around with it for a bit.
gregfjohnson 4y ago
Given that you can solve the top layer, there is a really nice hack that lets you work out the rest of the puzzle. Say your top layer is completely solved, except that one of the top side pieces is flipped 180 degrees. You know a sequence of moves that will fix that piece, to solve the top layer. If you do that sequence and then run the same sequence backwards, you will get the cube back to the same place, first with that side piece fixed, and then rotated 180 degrees again. But here is the trick: Before you run the sequence backwards, rotate the top! You will restore the cube exactly to where it was, except that now TWO of the top side pieces will have been flipped 180 degrees! This is referred to as a commutator operation, and is what Ryan Heise explains. Variants of this trick will let you rotate two corners in opposite directions, and re-position two top pieces and one bottom piece. One last thing: when solving the bottom layer, you may find yourself unable to re-position cubies into place using 3-way moves. Just rotate the top layer 90 degrees and you will then be able to proceed to completion.

988747 4y ago

If I understand it correctly, this visualization does not take into account the constraints of some faces being physically tied to each other, by being on the same cube. So, while it can show the process of solving cube, it is not a replacement for the cube (i.e. you can't use it as a simulation to try to figure out new algorithms)

nsilvestri 4y ago
It does, but not elegantly: when a non-slice move is made, you have to rotate the 3x3 group at the center. You see it in the animation.

joshspankit 4y ago

Kind of reminds me of playing the 4D Rubik’s cube

kazinator 4y ago

I saw this on Mastodon three hours before the $8Chan link was posted here. https://piaille.fr/@Mnaudin/109389968985022395 https://piaille.fr/@Mnaudin/109389968985022395 It's a really poor representation, for specific reasons: - it doesn't convey how the corner and edge colors are constrained into moving together, due to being mounted on the same cube piece. - doesn't convey how the center face pieces stay in place relative to each other. - certain rotations "cheat": the dots dance around, not staying on their orbit tracks.

cvoss 4y ago
But the actual 3D Rubik's Cube is also a really poor representation, because at all times you can only see at most half of the cube. I guess the point of making a 2D representation is to correct that problem. I can much more easily superimpose the missing connections you have mentioned in my mind's eye onto this 2D representation than I can remember the 3D layout of the half of the cube I can't see. Not everyone's brain works that way, but mine does.

wantsanagent 4y ago

Cube solving is a path finding problem. The way to learn path finding problem is to understand how your actions move you through the space you're navigating. One of the most effective ways to learn these relationships is to work backwards. Starting from the goal, take a step away, then step back. Then take two steps away, then those steps back. Then take different steps away and steps back. As you move farther and farther from the goal you get an explosion of options that quickly requires deduction of strategies over memorization of all paths back to the goal. This can help ground learning the well known techniques for cube solving. This visualization might help with that process, but just playing solutions from start to finish (IMO) doesn't.

taeric 4y ago
I found it somewhat fun to think of it in terms of permutations. https://taeric.github.io/cube-permutations-1.html https://taeric.github.io/cube-permutations-1.html is where I started with the idea. Never went too far with it, sadly. I do have my own 2d view of the rubics cube there. Was fun to watch the squares jump around. :D

raintrees 4y ago

https://nitter.net/jagarikin/status/1593771091738374144 https://nitter.net/jagarikin/status/1593771091738374144