A Working 5D Rubik's Cube 171
Melinda Green writes "Readers who enjoyed the previous
Slashdot postings regarding the 4-dimensional Rubik's cube called MagicCube4D will
be interested to know that a couple of brilliant developers have
recently created a working 5-dimensional Rubik's
cube. Operating a 5 dimensional puzzle projected all the way down
to a 2D computer screen may seem a hopeless task but the full 5D puzzle
has already been solved
by 3 people. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 4D puzzle has now
been ported to Java and is available as both a full-featured desktop
application and as an Applet."
MY HEAD ASPLODE! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MY HEAD ASPLODE! (Score:1, Funny)
Smithers:You mean the revolver, sir?
Mr.Burns: Precisely.
Re:MY HEAD ASPLODE! (Score:4, Funny)
2D "cube"? (Score:2)
Re:2D "cube"? (Score:2, Funny)
I see that... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I see that... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I see that... (Score:2)
Re:I see that... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't need to explain your reasons not to solve this puzzle.
Re:I see that... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:I see that... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see you've gotten spanked as a troll... Unfortunate. Personally, I don't suspect you of trolling, just stating a fact. However...
Whether you like it or not (and I say this as a
A pity, really, because
Regardless, you would do yourself a favor to get used to
Re:I see that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I see that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I see that... (Score:2, Funny)
You're completely missing the point!
Re:I see that... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I see that... (Score:3, Funny)
Win32 is not gonna go away anytime soon. (Score:2)
Re:I see that... (Score:2)
Re:Nah, fuck that shit, man. (Score:1)
Re:Nah, fuck that shit, man. (Score:2)
Re:I see that... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:I see that... (Score:2, Funny)
We're all masochists. And just using Windows isn't enough by itself.
Re:I see that... (Score:2)
Re:I see that... (Score:2)
This Windows user (Score:2)
Re:I see that... (Score:4, Funny)
oh it gets better (Score:2)
Re:oh it gets better (Score:2)
they can create a solvable 4d or 5d cube, but can't imagine mac users trying it out?
Re:oh it gets better (Score:2)
This girl needs a serious dose of Prozac.
http://dogcow.atspace.com/photos/bleeder.jpg [atspace.com]
No good deed... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my god, you're right! It does look like he wrote this application in .NET solely for the purpose of being a huge burden on everyone! After thinking about it, I guess it really does have nothing to do with .NET probably being the language he's most familiar with. I'm sure that he probably did want to spend several months learning a new language for something that could best be described as an amusing diversion, but chose not to because he wanted to waste the few minutes it would take you to download and install .NET. Come to think of it, I'm sure the fact that most people already have .NET installed probably just makes him mad, because it mitigates the toll his application will take on society.
The fact that it's kind of cool is only a ruse in his more diabolical agenda of making your life miserable for five or so minutes. The fact that we are compelled to install it by means I don't quite understand yet only makes the situation worse. If only we had a choice whether or not we wanted to play with a 5-dimensional Rubik's Cube!
Personally, I think that if you're as outraged as I am, since you're obviously so much smarter then me, you should rewrite his application in a morally superior language. The kink in this fool's plan is that he seems to have forgotten to patent the application (but be careful, it could be another trick!), which leaves the door open for anyone to simply rewrite it!
Please start working on it right away, as this outrage must not go unanswered!
Re:No good deed... (Score:3)
Re:I see that... (Score:2)
Bet they cheated (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bet they cheated (Score:1)
Simple!
Re:Bet they cheated (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bet they cheated (Score:2)
Wait! You mean you actually looked at five sides of the cube, and ... and then spent your time to look at the last one? What a waste of time!
Re:Bet they cheated (Score:2)
Re:Bet they cheated (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with that is if you take apart and reassemble a 4D or 5D Rubik's Cube, you also turn the universe inside-out.
I give up (Score:2)
Re:I give up (Score:3, Informative)
You should read Diaspora [wikipedia.org] by Greg Egan.
Re:I give up (Score:2)
Re:I give up (Score:1)
Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:5, Funny)
Also I will need a spare set of 4 dimensional stickers in case the original ones fall off.
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
If you don't have one, however, the digital version is your only choice, hence this application.
I'll be curious to meet the guys who solved the 5D cube, make sure they have two eyes, two hand and lags like the rest of us mortals.
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
They probably do. It's their brains that are probably a strange color, possibly glowing faintly in the dark.
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:3, Funny)
To us, they look like white mice.
You see, they really were very clever hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings.
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (Score:2)
5D Cubes sold here (Score:2)
Can you still... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can you still... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can you still... (Score:2)
Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (Score:2)
Re:Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (Score:2)
Unless the normal SuSE 10.1 distro comes with the
Re:Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (Score:2)
I ran the 4D one on my Linux box as a Java applet.
I was wrong, mark your calendars.
Should be possible in a few minutes (Score:5, Informative)
Using a few simple, easy-to-learn algorithms, and with a few weeks practice it is possible for pretty much anyone to solve the 3D cube in just 2 or 3 minutes. Using a layer-by-layer method you can solve each piece one at a time in the first two layers, then learn 4 algorithms to fix the last layer (not necessarily in this order):
1) Rotate edges
2) Rotate corners
3) Permute corners
4) Permute edges
Sometimes you will have to use an algorithm twice. Each algorithm takes about 10 moves, and at a slow speed of one move per second and a bit of luck you can solve the last layer in under a minute. Here's a beginner's guide:
http://peter.stillhq.com/jasmine/rubikscubesoluti
If you want to get faster you need to learn more algorithms so that you can complete two steps at once.
A popular method which can be used to get very fast times is the Fridrich method, but it requires a lot of memorisation and lots and lots of practice:
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html [binghamton.edu]
Personally I managed to get times of under 1 minute by practising the cube every day in the bus to and from work.
Re:Should be possible in a few minutes (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the GP is slow, just not in so many words.
Don't look so surprised... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn... And I thought I was hopelessly nerdy.
I must look positively herculean next to these guys.
I remember spending the better part of an afternoon last summer trying to solve my girlfriend's father's 20 year old rubiks cube.
I was really close to solving it when it litterally fell apart in my hands. Turns out one of the (now grown up) kids had once tried to forcibly solve it with a screwdriver. Now, whenever you it get into a certain configuration (ie: a near-finished state) it loses all structural integrity.
I could have cried... I WAS SO CLOSE!!!
I was crazy to spend so long on a three diementional rubik's cube.
But, I don't know which is crazier... That someone made a four diementional version, or that people have already solved it.
Wrinkle in Time (Score:1)
Re:Wrinkle in Time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wrinkle in Time (Score:3, Informative)
You can 'draw' a 4D cube in 3D space by making two wireframe cubes, and joining all the equivalent corners. You can also think of it as a cube moving from one place to another, with every 'frame' inbetween shown.
4d Java Applet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:4d Java Applet (Score:2)
Really 4D/5D? (Score:4, Interesting)
"These are Rubik's cubes of the form 3d [gravitation3d.com], with the original popular puzzle being 33. We label the puzzles like this because they are a d-dimensional cube broken into 3d smaller pieces or "cubies" of the same dimension. For example, the 3D cube has 33 or 27 total 3-dimensional cubies."
Does adding cubies really mean adding a dimension, or does it mean simply making a more complicated 3D puzzle and giving it a fancy name? (Behold: the Fifth Dimension! Amaze Your Friends!)
I noticed in the 4D model [superliminal.com] that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that? What do the green cubes represent? Where are the pieces which disappear supposed to be going, and why can't we see the changes being made to this set of cubies? Is the invisible set a cheat on the part of the designers?
I have not played with the 5D version, and so have no questions about that one.
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:1)
Technically, your view in the 4D applet is inside the hypercube. The side you don't see is the closet one to you, but they made it invisible in order to let you see as many sides as po
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2, Informative)
You just cannot see all sides of the cube simultaneously, just as with it's 3d-counterpart.
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:5, Informative)
The green cubes that appear and disappear as you make moves are from the 'hidden' face of the hypercube, which has 8 faces. Their projection is using a base unfolding, to understand what they've done consider the parallel from unfolding a 3d cube into 2d. Imagine you are staring precisely face on at a cube:
XXX
XXX
XXX
Now unfold all the sides connected to the X's so you can see them straight on:
OOO
OOO
OOO
AAAXXXBBB
AAAXXXBBB
AAAXXXBBB
MMM
MMM
MMM
If you started playing a game of rubik's cube on this, you'd soon see another letter show up whenever you made a move, let's call it G for green. Where do the G's come from? From the sixth face of the cube that wasn't visible due to the choice of unfolding. The face exactly opposite of the X's
Same thing in the 4d case. There are 8 faces, only 7 of which are visible due to their poor choice of unfolding technique.
Here's wolfram's hypercube page for more info:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypercube.html [wolfram.com]
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
OOO
OOO
OOO
AAAXXXBBBGGG
AAAXXXBBBGGG
AAAXXXBBBGGG
MMM
MMM
MMM
And be able to see the entire contents. It may not be as pretty but it would all show up.
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
Have we really added a dimension? Well, perhaps not because the higher dimensional portions of the puzzle are being projected down to our real lower dimensions. So in a sense, yes these are just "more complicated 3D puzzles". But they are not just
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
Side 1: RRR/RRR/RRR
Side 2: GGG/GGG/GGG
Side 6: BBB/BBB/BBB?
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
Re:Really 4D/5D? (Score:2)
Rubik's... Ruby's? (Score:1)
4D ? 5D? (Score:2)
4th dimension is not necessarily time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:4, Funny)
They were a 1970's group, they had a hit called "Aquarius".
Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:5, Informative)
Although time is said to be the 4th dimension is time, it is only an analogy. Time appears in several physical equations in a context similar to the 3 spatial dimensions, but it is always treated differently.
For example, the spacetime "distance" is calculated by:
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2*t^2)
Notice the negative sign and the additional speed-of-light factor.
If there were 4 spatial dimensions, the distance would be calculated by
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2 + v^2)
taking v as the displacement in the 4th dimension.
The Rubik's cube programs work by projecting 4 or 5 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane (your screen), basically in the same way that perspective is used to project 3D pictures onto 2D planes.
So the 4th and 5th dimension aren't mathematically or conceptually different to the familiar 3 dimensions. The only difference is that we cannot comprehend them.
Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:4D ? 5D? (Score:2)
In this simulation, the extra two dimensions are spatial. They're just like the regular three, except they're two other directions. Naturally we can't depict them as a four dimensional being would see them, but we can represent them in a
Go Roice and Charlie! (Score:2, Redundant)
Both of these guys who wrote this are my co-workers at my day job. They're both really brilliant guys. IIRC Roice has actually solved a 3D cube behind his back before...
Psh~ (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Psh~ (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_puzzle [wikipedia.org]
Re:Psh~ (Score:5, Funny)
http://ptth.net/slashdot/2d_rubik's_cube.JPG [ptth.net]
This at least proves one thing (Score:2)
Anyway - it is actually an interesting piece of work. The original cube itself is also very nice. One must recognize that even the original cube does actually contain more than one solution. If you replace the stickers on an original cube with 6 different images then you will reduce the number of solutions to one single. The catch is that the center piece can on an original cube have four different positions that all are correct. This means that the or
Re:This at least proves one thing (Score:2)
5x5x5 cubes also exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor's_Cube [wikipedia.org]
Cheers,
Roger
Oh Hell! (Score:2)
Five dimensions? (Score:2)
Re:I think... (Score:1, Funny)
You have to realise the truth! (Score:2)
When you realise this, you will see that it is not the cube that gets solved. It is only yourself.
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Re:I think... (Score:2)
Re:All I can say is: vist timecube.com (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One of five ever made (Score:2)
Re:One of five ever made (Score:2)
As to being too difficult to solve, the world record for solving one of these is 1:47.22 (that's less than
Re:One of five ever made (Score:2)