/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4881033]

How many /sci/fags can actually solve a rubiks cube? If so what methods do you use? Pic related its my 5x5.

[Anonymous No.4881043]

It has only finitely many states. It is trivial just go through all

[Anonymous No.4881047]

I can solve a 3x3 going by layers in about a minute and a half. Thinking about learning a faster method.

[Anonymous No.4881050]

>Not solving Rubik's Cubes in 4D
>ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.4881055]

I can solve a Rubik's Cube and higher order cubes (after about 7x7x7 it's all the same), as well as other different shaped puzzles.

I've not actually done any speedcubing in a while, but I use CFOP/Fridrich.

[Anonymous No.4881057]

3x3 fridrich i'm at 14.xx average. can solve 2x2-11x11 and pyraminx,mega/giga/tera + all mefferts puzzles and several others

[Anonymous No.4881068]

>>4881043
That's what algorithms are for.
And what are your favorite brands? Mines sheng shou.

[Anonymous No.4881071]

>>4881057
I'm around sub 20 on my 3x3.

[Anonymous No.4881079]

>>4881033

I can solve 3s in a minute and a half or so (haven't timed since the first week I bought it, but I don't think I've improved much). Never tried with anything else.

[Anonymous No.4881107]

More importantly, did anyone here ever solve a rubik's cube on their own, i.e. not looking the solution up on the internet?

[Anonymous No.4881108]

Yes. Two minutes, Lars Petrus' method.

[Anonymous No.4881128]

I used to be able to do a normal 3x3 in under 90seconds. I'm way out of practice. I used a combination of algorithms, none of them were exactly the speed methods.

Never moved on to higher cubes. It's not as hard as people think. The biggest obstacle is figuring out how pieces move. Once you solve that, it's just a matter of coming up with the fastest way of moving things and moving pieces simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.4881138]

>>4881128
>The biggest obstacle is figuring out how pieces move. Once you solve that, it's just a matter of coming up with the fastest way of moving things and moving pieces simultaneously.

You sound like one of those retards who says shit like "Don't lose!" when people talk about not being able to get past a difficult level in a game.

"Derp all you have to do is press the right buttons and not get hit!"

[Anonymous No.4881144]

>>4881138

When I watch a person try to solve one for the first time, without help, they just randomly twist shit as if they hope it will all work out in the end. The point of my post was that if you're going to pick up a cube, realize that it moves predictably. And figuring the movements out is pretty much the meat of the puzzle. The rest is optimization.

Don't lose!

[Anonymous No.4881148]

been using dayan guhong and lingyun for awhile. admittedly I haven't solved any in awhile, but I was usually around 60 seconds (fridrich) for 3x3. I never really timed myself on any others, I know my 11x11 solves took forever

[Anonymous No.4881160]

>>4881107
Isn't that the whole point of the puzzle?

Anyway, it all comes down to finding sequences of moves that only change the positions/orientations of a small number of pieces. The main trick to constructing such sequences is <span class="math">[\phantom{A B A^{-1} B^{-1}}][/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.4881161]

Anyone tried the petaminx?

[Anonymous No.4881168]

>>4881107

Of course. Someone must have found the methods of solving the cube first, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to look up.

[Anonymous No.4881171]

>>4881168
People from here I meant. If you look up the solution it is merely a challenge of memorising steps , maybe finding patters quickly and visualising the cube in your head.

If you actually managed to solve the cube without any help I'm deeply impressed.

[Anonymous No.4881172]

>>4881107
> More importantly, did anyone here ever solve a rubik's cube on their own, i.e. not looking the solution up on the internet?

Ive never tried with or without a method. I suppose i can give it a try one day.

[Anonymous No.4881184]

>>4881161
No, but I'd expect it reduces to a megaminx in the same way the 5x5x5 cube reduces to the normal cube.

[Anonymous No.4881212]

>swap only 2 stickers
>rubix cube is now impossible to solve

[Anonymous No.4881214]

if you looked up a method or used the method that came with the cube you're a pleb and you're dumb and you didn't solve it you copied someone else's solution.

[Anonymous No.4881216]

>>4881107

I never looked up any solutions, I only ever solved a 4x4x4 cube once.
It took me quite a while to get the hang of it and as I did it for short periods of a time every other day I kind of forgot the methods I made up every time so I had to come up with something again.
It was fun though.

[Anonymous No.4881226]

>>4881161
That's fuckin intense. I want one just for a decoration now.

[Anonymous No.4881235]

>>4881212

[Anonymous No.4881349]

How the fuck do I improve finger speed? My average is about 45-50 seconds. Color neutral, F2L, beginner method on last layer. I know I could easily improve timing by learning my oll's and pll's but I don't really feel like devoting much time to that right now. I know that I could probably get sub 30 if my fingers moved efficiently, but I haven't found any tips to help me do this.

[Anonymous No.4881376]

F2L into the beginner top algorithms (FRUR'U'F' etc.) Fastest solve I timed was 35.11 I believe. Looking to learn the entire Friedrich method to go sub 30 but I don't have the time as of now.

[Anonymous No.4881380]

>>4881349
Maybe obvious, but make sure you're using your fingers and sort of flicking the layers into place and not using your wrist.

[Anonymous No.4881389]

>only using 3 dimensions instead of 5

How does it feel to be such a pleb?

[Anonymous No.4881390]

Never saw or wanted to try anything bigger than 3x3x3 around here.

The 3x3x3 is a fun challenge for me, I still have to look at the cheat sheet for the algorithm to make the second layer but before and after that Im good

[Anonymous No.4881393]

Piece of cake.
The hard part is getting the stickers to stay on after you've peeled them off a few times.

[Anonymous No.4881395]

>>4881376
This anon uses a Dayan Guhong as well.

[Anonymous No.4881400]

What the fuck is the point of just memorizing an algorithm and doing it as fast possible? You know that has absolutely nothing to do with being smart, right?

[Anonymous No.4881401]

>>4881349

lube your cube with high quality silicon spray lubricant.

The rest is what you physically can or cannot do. Practice the algorithms, know your shortcuts and lots of youtube videos.

[Anonymous No.4881406]

>>4881400

Because anyone implied doing a Rubik's cube makes you smart

[Anonymous No.4881409]

>>4881401
Or get a speed cube. Dayan Guhongs are cheaper than the branded Rubik's cubes.

[Anonymous No.4881410]

>>4881406

I took a guess at the motivation. So if not that, then I repeat the question.

[Anonymous No.4881414]

>>4881410
It's a good way to improve spatial visualisation.

[Anonymous No.4881416]

>>4881414

Not if you're just following an algorithm it isn't.

[Anonymous No.4881417]

>>4881400

he thinks solving a rubiks cube makes someone smart

[Anonymous No.4881428]

>>4881416
The cross and F2L methods to solve the bottom 2 layers don't use algorithms. But I agree, a method using exclusively algorithms wouldn't be helpful with spacial visualisation.

[Anonymous No.4881436]

>>4881410

Herp derp, why does anyone do anything.

People like to learn to do Rubik's cubes fast for the fun off it. There are tier systems of algorithms each becoming more complex but allowing yyou to effectively solve then faster.

"Why do you faggots play chess! its not like learning some stupid openings and mid games means your smart!"

[Anonymous No.4881443]

>>4881436
>Herp derp, why does anyone do anything.

Well I'm guessing in this case it's because autists love repetitive behaviors.

[Anonymous No.4881451]

>>4881436
>"Why do you faggots play chess! its not like learning some stupid openings and mid games means your smart!"

Well, it doesn't. And if that's how you play chess then you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4881455]

I doubt this is science or maths.

[Anonymous No.4881508]

>>4881409
>>4881401
>>4881380

I've done all of this. I still don't know what the fuck else to do

[Anonymous No.4881534]

I can.

[Anonymous No.4881549]

>>4881451

>Implying you know how to play chess

[Anonymous No.4881555]

>>4881508
Then just make it so you don't have to think if the algorithm you just know a sequence by seeing it and can physically just do it by muscle memory. That's how I do it.

[Anonymous No.4881568]

>>4881555
>>4881555

I do this too. The problem is that the muscle memory is based on shitty movements. I know a bunch of people that make one quick flick for their movements, which is what I do most of the time. But maybe one out of every ten turns I use my whole hand because it feels more efficient than if I flick it. Plus my hands are always kinda shaky.

[Anonymous No.4881573]

>>4881568
Just look up finger tricks on youtune. That shit helped me shave off over a minute of my time.

[Anonymous No.4881594]

Anyone here use shengshou?

[Anonymous No.4881726]

>>4881594
>>4881594

I have a shengshou 3x3 4x4 and 5x5. 3x3 my dayan guhong is way better. 4x4 I used to have some shitty black cube I bought randomly on Amazon that was way better than the shengshou. The 5x5 is master race though.