[HN Gopher] 34x34x34 Rubik's Cube
___________________________________________________________________
34x34x34 Rubik's Cube
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 182 points
Date : 2024-10-27 15:06 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ruwix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ruwix.com)
| russellbeattie wrote:
| Pfffft. Old news. How about a 49x49x49 cube instead?
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZeylpCG3IE
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| From the original article on the 34x34x34 "record":
|
| > It took about 1 year, and 1000 work hours to make the cube.
|
| Imagine doing all that work, all the planning, designing,
| printing, assembly, and feeling the title will be yours soon,
| knowing the record has stood unbroken for 7 years, confident
| you're the only person even trying...
|
| ... And then 4 weeks before you finish a guy appears on YouTube
| with his 49x49x49...
|
| Ooof.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Nah, TFA was published on May 10, 2024, so he did hold the
| record for almost half a year.
| mega_dean wrote:
| In the 49x49x49 video, he goes over previous world records
| of "Highest Order nxnxn Twisty Puzzle", and I thought it
| was weird he didn't mention the 34x34x34. But in the
| youtube description, he links to this forum post where he
| announces it on August 10 (a few weeks before the video,
| but still well after May 10):
| https://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39559
| There is a comment from the creator of the 34x34x34:
|
| > Ah there's so much I want to say, where to begin? Well,
| soon after finishing the 34x34, I notified Greg, who
| immediately notified me about the 49x49. At that point,
| Preston had already checkered the 49x49, so I did not
| consider the 34x34 a world record. It seems nobody noticed
| this, but nowhere in any of my videos did I claim the 34x34
| was a world record :lol: But still, everyone just assumed
| it was :lol:
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Apparently an even-sized cube is harder to make though so
| it should count as the record for even-sized cube
| Vampiero wrote:
| The previous record was 33x33x33. Imagine going through all
| that just to beat it by one unit while using the same design,
| that's so cheap.
|
| I'm so glad he was beaten by the 49x49x49.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I don't think the 49 guy was even attempting in a hurry. It
| took him 4+ years, right.
| queuebert wrote:
| FYI this is exactly what being a research scientist feels
| like.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I'm sorry I was not good with my search. I actually found a
| 33x33x33, and then the next highest that popped up was this
| 34x34x34. Next time, I will see if I should spend more time
| searching for higher records in any record-breaking event.
| tetris11 wrote:
| After the 22x22x22, the how seems to no longer be an issue and
| it's more about scaling the cube to the minimum density of the
| printer.
|
| That, and clearly money.
| qwertox wrote:
| The video at the bottom of the page is a work of art.
|
| Now someone should build a robot to actually work that thing.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocy09pzME4E
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Wow no kidding, I actually watched the whole thing.
|
| The stop motion of the build was very satisfying. It's also
| amazing how smoothly it moves, even being as heavy as it is.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| A few days ago, my younger daughter was trying to have fun and
| suggested that we watch an important video about solving a
| 1x1x1 Rubik's Cube. I went along, and we spent some time moving
| up the numbers; that's when we needed to search for the largest
| number of NxNxN possible, and we landed on this video and the
| article.
| nick__m wrote:
| Isn't a 1x1x1 rubik's cube a dice ? Or i am missing something
| about the size notation ?
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| My daughter was making fun of me!
| tetris11 wrote:
| You still have to solve the minimum number of rotations to
| get the "1" at the top and the "3" in front
| jandrese wrote:
| Isn't the minimum number of rotations always 0? IE you
| start with an already solved cube?
|
| Maximum number of rotations is more interesting, although
| in the 1 cube that is just 2.
| tromp wrote:
| The minimum is not over all starting configurations, but
| over all move sequences for a fixed starting
| configuration.
| Oreb wrote:
| From a puzzle-solving point of view, these very large cubes
| aren't that interesting. When you increase the cube size, there
| are new things to figure out, but only up to a certain point.
| Figuring out how to solve a 4x4x4 when you know how to solve a
| 3x3x3 takes some significant work. I think I spent a whole
| weekend to successfully solve a 4x4x4 the first time I got one,
| despite being reasonably good at solving the 3x3x3. Solving a
| 5x5x5 for the first time took just a couple of hours, there
| wasn't much new to learn. The 6x6x6 was easier still. When I got
| to the 7x7x7, there wasn't really anything new at all. I could
| solve it immediately, it just took more time.
|
| Anything beyond 7x7x7 is pretty much the same. It's just more
| annoying, because the puzzle gets physically harder to handle,
| and because you have to do the tedious work of counting how many
| layers away from the centre a piece is. The 7x7x7 is the biggest
| cube used in official competitions, for a good reason.
|
| The motivation for making enormous cubes like the 34x34x34 is
| just the engineering challenge, and breaking records. Nobody is
| going to want to solve such a thing, at least not more than once.
| matsemann wrote:
| Just to elaborate: Solving a 5x5x5 or a 7x7x7 is basically just
| turning the cube into a 3x3x3 by lining up the edges and fill
| in the centers. Which is a new thing, but quite easy to figure
| out. And then solve it as if it was a 3x3x3.
| Oreb wrote:
| That's not the only way to solve big cubes, but it's indeed
| the most common way (known as "reduction"), and what most
| people naturally come up with if they try to solve 4x4x4 or
| bigger on their own. In addition to what you said, there is
| also the issue of parity (basically, when you reduce a 4x4x4
| to a 3x3x3 by solving centers and edges first, you will often
| end up with a 3x3x3 cube in an unsolvable state, and you need
| to figure out some tricks to convert it to a solvable state),
| but if you know how to solve parity problems on a 4x4x4, you
| can do it for a cube of any size.
| golf_mike wrote:
| Just out of curiosity (no rubiks cube affinity at all), but
| how can there be an unsolvable state when there are
| 'tricks' get in a solvable state? Does that not imply that
| there are no unsolvable states at all? Or is that maybe
| related to a certain method of solving?
| glomph wrote:
| They mean that the outer 3x3 is unsolvable taken in
| isolaton. The tricks will involve unsolving the middle
| faces and solving them again.
| golf_mike wrote:
| thanks!
| Oreb wrote:
| The reduction method means reducing a big cube (NxNxN for
| N>3) to a 3x3x3 cube by first solving the centers (the
| central (N-2)x(N-2)x(N-2) square on each face) and the
| edges (the inner N-2 pieces along each edge of the cube).
| You are then essentially left with a 3x3x3 cube that you
| can try to solve by only turning the outer layers (which
| won't break the centers and edges you solved in the first
| stage).
|
| The problem with this is that you may end up with a 3x3x3
| cube that is not solvable. For instance, you can get a
| state where the entire cube is solved, except for two
| edges that need to swap locations. This isn't possible.
| In group theoretical language, only even permutations are
| possible. You can swap two _pairs_ of edges, but not just
| two edges.
|
| When you end up in such an unsolvable 3x3x3 cube, you
| have to temporarily turn the inner layers of the cube and
| break apart the centers and edges you built in the first
| step, and then reassemble them again to a solvable 3x3x3
| cube.
| golf_mike wrote:
| thanks!
| hinkley wrote:
| The moves to fix parity made the 4x4x4 less fun for me. The
| recommended solution is long.
|
| The hollow 3 has a similar problem. Because you can't see
| the central piece there's a way to rotate the core and a
| couple of edge pieces so they look like they violate
| parity.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Interesting, make me wonder what are the well known algorithms
| to solve them and how they compare in term of complexity.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That all sounds like fun but I'm still working through solving
| a 64-disc Tower of Hanoi puzzle right now and won't be able to
| get to another puzzle for a bit.
| anonu wrote:
| Lol, minimum moves needed 2^64-1
| jerf wrote:
| I'm still waiting for my Moment of Glory when a puzzle room
| or something has a Hanoi tower and I can slam out the
| solution as quickly as I can move the pieces, thus justifying
| all my formal Computer Science education once and for all.
|
| (There is a very easy-to-remember algorithm that can be
| trivially executed by humans given here in a Mathologer
| video, with a time-code link to jump straight to it:
| https://youtu.be/MbonokcLbNo?si=ey8bv4T9KbDxgB7N&t=650 )
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| It is my understanding that a 5x5x5 is actually more similar to
| a 3x3x3 than a 4x4x4 is.
| Oreb wrote:
| Sort of. The 3x3x3 and 5x5x5 both have fixed, immovable
| centers. Red is always opposite orange, blue is always
| opposite green, and yellow is always opposite white. The
| 4x4x4 doesn't have fixed centers. When you build the central
| 2x2 squares on each side (the first step of the reduction
| method), you have to be careful to have the colors arranged
| in the correct locations relative to each other. In a certain
| sense, this is trivial, but it forces you to remember exactly
| where all colors are on a solved cube in order to solve a
| 4x4x4 (or other even sized cubes). Odd sized cubes don't have
| this problem.
|
| Another annoying thing about 4x4x4 compared to 5x5x5 is that
| you have two possible types of parity issues on the 4x4x4. On
| the 5x5x5, only one of these can occur.
|
| Nevertheless, if you know how to solve a 3x3x3 and no bigger
| cube, a 4x4x4 is certainly the easiest next step.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Remember where the colours are when solved is overstating
| it a bit, you can look at the corners for the answer.
| Otherwise yep.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| i was clicking around on the site and found an interesting
| article about other attempts to make cubes more challenging --
|
| https://ruwix.com/twisty-puzzles/bandaged-cube-puzzles/
|
| in particular, "bandaged cubes" in which certain faces have
| fused blocks to limit your available moves, and "constrained
| cubes" in which certain faces can only rotate in one direction,
| and only by a certain amount.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| One of the hardest Rubik's cube I have seen is a regular
| 3x3x3, but with stickers that change color depending on the
| angle you look at them from.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I'd like to try that! Do you remember what it was called?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| There is the "Rubik's Impossible"
|
| https://www.rubiks.com/products/rubiks-impossible
|
| Sticker sets are also available, like this one
|
| https://oliverstickers.com/two-face-3x3x3.html
| brianleb wrote:
| I'm not a cuber or a puzzle guy or a math guy, but I am
| curious: how do you know when it's solved? Or is this a
| 'whoosh' moment and I'm missing the obvious?
| jquery wrote:
| The engineering challenge of making such a 34^3 cube is way
| higher than that of solving. It's incredible impressive what
| dedication is capable of.
| user2342 wrote:
| Are there recommendable sources on how to learn solving/the
| concepts of a classic cube?
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| are you looking for a classic cube specific source, or
| techniques that will solve much slower but generalize to other
| shapes of permutation puzzle?
| user2342 wrote:
| Rather for the classic 3x3x3 cube. I played with it in the
| 80ies, but never understood the concepts behind it.
| bembo wrote:
| The website this post is on is a wiki that explains how to
| solve a lot of different puzzles like the rubix cube.
| user2342 wrote:
| Thanks. Looks promising!
| Hackbraten wrote:
| I'm having a really hard time to understand even the
| "beginner's method" on that wiki.
|
| For example, it entirely glosses over how to solve the
| ,,first two layers" (F2L) on the left and back faces. It only
| ever explains F2L for the front and right faces. However, I
| can't possibly achieve a ,,yellow cross" that way. I wonder
| why I can't seem to find any source that actually explains
| it.
| Oreb wrote:
| I generally prefer written tutorials over video tutorials,
| but cubing related stuff is an exception. Videos are easier
| to digest.
|
| Here's a good beginner tutorial:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBHocHmPzgIjnAbNLHDy
| c...
| Oreb wrote:
| There are a lot of methods, optimized for different purposes.
| Some are easy to learn, but take a very large number of moves
| to solve the cube. Some are exactly the opposite: Difficult to
| learn, but enables you to solve the cube in just a few seconds.
| Others are optimized for solving the cube in the fewest
| possible number of moves, but requires so much thinking that
| they are not suitable for fast solutions. Others again are
| optimized for blindfolded solving.
|
| My two favorite methods are Roux and 3-style.
|
| Roux is the second most common method for speedsolving.
| Compared to the more popular CFOP method, Roux is more
| intuitive (in the sense that you mostly solve by thinking
| rather than by executing memorized algorithms), and requires
| fewer moves. Roux is much more fun than CFOP, if you ask me,
| and for adults and/or people who are attracted to the puzzle-
| solving nature of the cube rather than in learning algorithms
| and finger-tricks, I think it's easier to learn. Kian Mansour's
| tutorials on YouTube is a good place to start learning it.
|
| 3-style is a method designed for blindfolded solving, but it's
| a fun way to solve the cube even in sighted solves. It's a very
| elegant way to solve the cube, based on the concept of
| commutators. It takes a lot of moves compared to Roux, but the
| fun thing is that it can be done 100% intuitively, without any
| memorized algorithms (Roux requires a few, though not nearly as
| many as CFOP). It's satisfactory to be able to solve the cube
| in a way where you understand and can explain every single step
| of your solution. As an added bonus, if you know 3-style, you
| can easily learn blindfolded solving, which is tremendously
| fun, and not nearly as difficult as it sounds.
|
| Edit: If you do decide you want to learn, make sure you get a
| good modern cube. The hardware has advanced enormously since
| the 1980s, modern cubes are so much easier and more fun to use.
| There are plenty of good choices. Stay away from original
| Rubik's cubes, get a recent cube from a brand like Moyu, X-man
| or Gan.
| z5h wrote:
| I'll add my vote for Roux in terms of pure fun. And there is
| more freedom to play between fastest solves and fewer moves
| with more planning.
| chrisshroba wrote:
| I used to be able to solve the 3x3 in high school using
| memorized algorithms and then I lost interest since there was
| no reasoning involved. Your comment makes me want to pick it
| back up and learn 3-style, so thank you for the clear
| explanation!
| vikingerik wrote:
| If what's fun is the reasoning, then the thing to do is
| other shapes and styles of puzzles besides the cube.
|
| This is my collection: https://imgur.com/v9OuYNw
|
| Like you, I learned the 3x3x3 in high school via memorized
| algorithms, and that was only so interesting. Years later
| my brother got me a Megaminx (the dodecahedron equivalent
| to the 3x3x3 cube, third one in the top row there) and I
| was absolutely fascinated by learning to solve that by
| porting what I knew from the cube. From there I got all
| those other shapes as well. The most interesting ones to
| search by name: Dayan Gem 3 (the one that looks like the
| Star of David), Face-Turning Octahedron (last one in the
| second row), Helicopter Cube (to the right of the 3x3x4),
| Rex Cube (right from the Helicopter Cube).
| billmcneale wrote:
| Even with CFOP, there is a large amount of intuition needed
| in order to break below the 25 second limit, mostly because
| of lookahead. During that phase, you need to train your
| fingers to do moves while your brain anticipates the next
| moves. There are no real formulas involved, it's really
| about intuition, pure skill, and multitasking.
|
| I have hit a wall there personally.
| spencerchubb wrote:
| I love the Roux method! I just went to a competition this
| weekend and got my personal record of 9.39 second average
| with Roux.
|
| The unfortunate part is that beginner tutorials for Roux kind
| of suck.
| Oreb wrote:
| Congrats, that's an awesome average! I wish I was that
| fast. I don't time myself often, but when I do, I usually
| end up somewhere around 15 seconds. My efficiency is not
| bad, but my hands are just too slow.
|
| I agree about beginner tutorials. There are some decent
| Roux tutorials, but they are mostly not targeting complete
| beginners. I believe it should be possible to make a Roux-
| based beginner method that is even simpler than the popular
| layer-by-layer beginner methods most new cubers learn. If
| you think about it, it seems almost obvious. If efficiency
| is not a concern, the first two blocks of Roux have to be
| simpler than the first two layers of a layer-by-layer
| approach, since you are solving a subset of the first two
| layers. CMLL is also obviously simpler than the CFOP last
| layer. The only thing that remains is the last six edges,
| and that's simple enough that I think beginners could
| figure out by trial and error. With the right
| simplifications (at the expense of efficiency) and good
| pedagogy, I therefore think Roux is ideally suited for
| teaching to complete beginners. Unfortunately, nobody has
| done it yet.
| 0x1ceb00da wrote:
| Don't start with algorithms. Figuring out how to solve them is
| half the fun. If you want to be a speedcuber you could always
| look up algorithms later but you can't unlearn the algorithms
| once you learn them.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| Perhaps it worked that way with you, but I'm not smart enough
| to figure out a 3x3 on my own, and wouldn't have had the many
| many hours of enjoyment that I did have, if I wouldn't have
| learned any algorithms.
|
| It's not like memorizing algorithms makes it trivial -
| there's still recognition/look-ahead and finger tricks to
| learn, if you want to get faster. And finding the optimal
| cross (in CFOP method) during the 15 second inspection takes
| some thinking. I'm bad at that.
| queuebert wrote:
| Also true with Nethack. I will forever regret reading
| spoilers before I seriously tried to ascend.
| dhosek wrote:
| That's a big part of why I've never learned to solve a
| Rubik's cube. I'd rather learn how to learn how to solve it
| than memorize an algorithm and I don't really have the
| time/motivation/interest to learn how to learn how so I
| haven't bothered.
|
| My son, at age 9, loved learning these kinds of algorithms
| (he also learned how to solve square roots by hand from a
| YouTube video and would do random square root calculations to
| entertain himself, checking his answers against the
| calculator on my ex-wife's kitchen Alexa).
| zoomablemind wrote:
| IMO, the firstmost source is your own observations. 3x cube is
| very tactile, so some moves are just natural.
|
| It helps also to develop some sort of notation for yourself.
| This way you can track and repeat your moves.
|
| Solving by layers is kinda logical. So solving one side (first
| layer) is not hard. Then some experimentation with rotation
| sequences which temporarily break the solved layer/face and
| then re-assemble it will lead to discovery of moves to swap the
| edges into the second layer.
|
| The hardest then is to solve the third layer. Again, the
| notation and observations help charting your way through.
|
| A curious discovery may be about some repeated pattern of moves
| which may be totally shuffling the cube yet, if continuing it,
| eventually returns the position to the beginning state. It's
| kind of a "period".
|
| Have fun.
| Oreb wrote:
| Solving by layers is logical, it's what most beginners learn,
| and it is kind of how CFOP (the most popular speedsolving
| method) works. Nevertheless, it's not what I would recommend.
| The problem with solving layer by layer is that you are sort
| of painting yourself into a corner from the beginning. After
| you have finished the first layer, you can't really do
| anything without breaking the first layer. Of course it is
| possible (and necessary) to proceed in a way where you keep
| breaking and repairing the first layer while progressing with
| the rest of the cube, but the limited freedom of movement
| still makes the solution process needlessly complicated, and
| increases the move count.
|
| In my opinion, it's better to start by solving a part of the
| cube that still leaves you with a significant amount of
| freedom of movement without breaking what you have already
| done. There are several ways to do this. My favorite method
| (Roux) starts by not making a full layer, but just a 3x2
| rectangle on one side. This rectangle is placed on the bottom
| left part of the cube. You still have a considerable degree
| of freedom, you can turn the top layer and the two rightmost
| layers without breaking your 3x2 rectangle.
|
| The next step is to build a symmetrical 3x2 rectangle on the
| lower right side of the cube. This is quite easy to do by
| just using the top layer and the two rightmost layers, thus
| avoiding to mess up the left hand 3x2.
|
| After finishing the two 3x2 rectangles (commonly known as the
| "first block" and the "second block"), the next step is to
| solve the corners on the top of the cube. This is the only
| algorithmic step of Roux, you use a number of memorized
| algorithms. However, the algorithms are shorter and simpler
| than those for the top layer of a layer-by-layer approach,
| because the algorithms are allowed to mess up everything
| along the middle slice (which hasn't been solved yet) and the
| edge pieces on the top of the cube.
|
| After finishing the top corners, you are still free to move
| the middle slice and the top layer without messing up what
| you've already done. Fortunately, this is enough for solving
| (intuitively!) the remaining pieces. You can finish the solve
| by using only these non-destructive moves.
|
| The Roux method, therefore, allows you to keep the maximum
| degree of freedom of movement (without destroying what's
| already been solved) all the way until the end. This is what
| allows it to have a very low move count, and what's makes it
| easy to learn. It also gives you a lot of creative
| opportunities compared to CFOP and other layer-by-layer
| methods. Because of the increased freedom, there are more
| ways of doing things, and bigger scope for clever shortcuts,
| especially when building the first and second blocks.
| boneitis wrote:
| (Snark warning, but even more than that, I find myself amused and
| amazed by the overall story)
|
| Ah, yes. Ruwix, the beloved Rubik's cube tutorial site that
| abused and cheated their way to the top of SEO rankings[0] in
| ethically dubious manner by directly victimizing end-users.
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27427330 ("How I
| uncovered a black-hat SEO scam")
| spiderice wrote:
| Wow.. that was a fun rabbit hole to go down. Makes me wish HN
| wasn't pushing a bunch of traffic to them this morning.
| zuminator wrote:
| I've read that the minimum number of moves for solving a 3x3x3
| cube in its most scrambled state ("God's number") is just 20
| moves, and this was verified through brute force search. I'm
| uncertain as to whether there is an algorithm for solving an
| arbitrarily scrambled cube in just 20 moves, or if it's just
| known that it is possible to be solved in 20 moves, but probably
| the latter. Anyway, I can't seem to find a corresponding God's
| number for the 4x4x4 cube but it seems perhaps the lower bound is
| in the 30-40 move range. I not a cuber (?) by any means so I
| don't know if there's any sort of formula to even approximate the
| lower bound for solving successively higher level cubes, but if
| there is, I'd be very curious to know what the approximate God's
| number is for this 34x34x34 beast.
|
| Anyway if we were to go with just a very naive guess that each
| higher level takes 1.5x the moves of the previous level so
| 3x3x3=20, 4x4x4=30, 5x5x5=45 and so on, that would yield
| 34x34x34= 5,752,532 moves (or 5,817,104 if you round up 1 at
| every fractional result), which at a second per move, would take
| over 2 months to solve. I suspect that in practice, any
| algorithmic means to solve such a cube would take somewhat
| longer, so much so that a thoroughly scrambled cube might never
| be unscrambled.
| fanf2 wrote:
| The web site for God's Number is http://www.cube20.org/
| incognito124 wrote:
| You mean the maximum number of moves?
| mr_mitm wrote:
| The way I read it was that it's the maximum minimum number of
| moves.
| marsten wrote:
| Based on the bounds discussed at
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/8chfuu/i_found_a_ge...
| it appears that a 34x34x34 cube can be algorithmically solved
| in under 100,000 moves.
|
| Maximum number of moves scales as n^2.
| zuminator wrote:
| Wow that's incredible, far less than I imagined. Thanks!
| Jabbles wrote:
| > God's number for the 4x4x4 cube
|
| it has been proved only that the lower bound is 31, while the
| most probable value is considered to be 32
|
| https://oeis.org/A257401
| ambyra wrote:
| This is strange, probably not fun to play. I think an exploded
| view (t shape) on the computer would be cool.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Why are the corners so big?
| nachox999 wrote:
| they wanted to make sure nothing could cut in
| NeoTar wrote:
| Each corner piece needs to make contact with the core.
|
| Consider when the top layer is rotated 45 degrees relative to
| the layer below. The corner is now about 0.707 units from the
| centre of the face, but the layer below only extends 0.5 units
| out from the centre.
|
| If the corner pieces were smaller than about 0,207 units it
| would become disconnected from the cube as a whole.
|
| So, any cube larger than (I believe) the 5 by 5 either needs to
| have bulging faces, or have the edge/corner pieces larger than
| the others.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Hmm, it looks like even a 7x7x7 doesn't need to have much. I
| guess it has a tiny amount larger edge and corner pieces
| though...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Shengshou-7x7x7-Cube-Puzzl-
| black/dp/B...
| NeoTar wrote:
| You are correct, the 7 x 7 x 7 is the minimum where a
| perfect cube of cubes is impossible. The Wikipedia article
| shows the issue with the corner cubes.
|
| Apparently the 7-cube bulges slightly which helps to hide
| that the larger sized edges / corners
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Cube_7
| dllu wrote:
| 3D printing technology is amazing now. I used to struggle with my
| ABS prints warping 12 years ago with a PP3DP --- I couldn't even
| print a giant 3x3x3 rubik's cube that worked. Now there are lots
| of 3D printers that are essentially just zero configuration and
| everything works out of the box. I even printed a lens mount for
| my camera and it came out quite well aligned. So it is very nice
| to see some regular consumer 3D printers being good enough for a
| functional 34 x 34 x 34 cube.
| ksymph wrote:
| Small error: Oskar van Deventer's 17x17 is at 2009 in the
| timeline, but the description says 2011.
| corry wrote:
| A few months ago I learned to solve the classic 3x3x3 using the
| beginner's method [0]. Basically, you memorize a set of
| algorithms based on the current state of the cube and what
| overall stage of solving you're at (you first solve the white
| layer, then the middle layer, then the final layer).
|
| What's funny is that I feel no compulsion to learn other methods,
| no compulsion to get faster at it, no compulsion to move up to
| larger cubes like 4x4x4 etc.
|
| I just find it soothing and meditative. In fact, doing a few
| cubes has replaced some amount of doom-scrolling for me. Hard to
| describe exactly. Scratches some hand-eye / brain-motor itch.
|
| [0] This is the guide I used:
| https://assets.ctfassets.net/r3qu44etwf9a/6kAQCoLmbXXu29TTuA...
| Snacklive wrote:
| Yes, i understand perfectly this is exactly what i do with my
| cube, it is sitting in my desk and i give it a few solves
| daily, it really helps to keep my mental in a good state.
|
| I will probably buy another this time stickerless to not worry
| about them deteriorating over time
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-01 23:00 UTC)