What is Digg?149 Comments
- SilverhammerMBA, on 10/10/2007, -14/+123As someone who actually knows how to solve Rubik's cube, I'd just like to let everyone know that saying "I always just took the stickers off" is not funny. It's never funny. Every single time I solve a cube within sight of other people, at least one person always has to come up and tell me how they take the stickers off as though they're the cleverest jackass in the world. It's not clever, it's not funny, it's stupid.
- rgodfrey, on 10/10/2007, -22/+94I can remove all the stickers (except the middle squares) and re-stick them in the correct position in 96 moves.
- scojerroc, on 10/10/2007, -13/+73huh. every time i move the stickers on a cube within sight of other people, some jackass comes up to me and says "i always just twist the sides around".
it's NOT FUNNY! NOT EVER!! - JohnnyBoy117, on 10/10/2007, -11/+68http://i13.tinypic.com/5zl8v0g.gif
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+52I never liked the sticker-removing technique, myself. They don't always look the same when they're put back, and they lose some stickiness to boot; always sucks to see a sticker go missing because it was removed too many times. I always preferred to disassemble the cube and reassemble it in the solved configuration. Turn one of the faces 45 degrees, and push one of the corner sub-cubes away from the main cube. It'll pop off, and then the whole thing is easy to take apart. The only downside is that the cube ends up a bit "looser" after reassembly, but this can be a good thing, as they tend to be too stiff (IMHO) by default.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -3/+51If cancer could be solved in 26 moves, I'm sure we'd be done by now.
- KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -13/+49Are all the other people who can solve Rubik's Cubes *****, too?
- Shamonue, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31I don't know what that has to do with anything, but thank you!
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -8/+36So that's that...
*throws Rubik's Cube in the trash* - whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32Cool, I can solve the Rubik's cube as well, but I'm not an uptight ***** about it.
- amdahlj, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Wow, finally someone from Northeastern has done something useful!
-Jordan Amdahl
Econ Major at NEU - PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17H@X
- pussnuts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Thank you JohnnyBoy117. Your service to this thread is commendable and apreciated.
- opnickc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16According to the article, the programmer also writes algorithms for protein folding. Sounds like he's doing his part on that front too.
- twomeyw23334, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I can solve "thepeoplescube" in 0 moves!!!
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/Store.php
It is a politically correct Rubik's cube that is the same color on all sides. It is a favorite pass time for progressives such as myself. I personally think the color cubes are too discriminatory. They lead to a competitive nature that is just not healthy. I don't think some people should feel left out because they can't or aren't able to complete the cube. - FallDownUA, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14no
- inspecality, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14phew, thanks for signing
- afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13"So we still don't have a cure for cancer, and we're using supercomputers to post on Digg? wtf?"
See how dumb you sound? - nipterink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10well, the computer PROVED any cube can be solved in 26 moves in a few hours. it can actually come up with the moves almost instantly. you lose again.
- amdahlj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Question: Can I get a coop in Rubik's cube solving?
- AcesFullMoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So, I guess this MATHEMATICIAN should have calculated an algorithm to solve hunger, AIDS, and cancer. Cause we all know that is what MATHematicians do, right? Cheer up friend.
- zhlimnick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8if only they showed how to ACTUALLY solve it in 26 steps...
- rgodfrey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I agree! It's just harder to count the "moves" this way.
- sephiroth965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And what have YOU done lately to help cure cancer?
- thoughtudied999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7RFTA. His name is Daniel Kunkle.
- thoughtudied999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The cube.
- holygram, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're an ass. Its not like someone came up to this guy and was like "do you want to cure cancer or learn about rubiks cubes?" No, douchebag.
Why don't you go cure cancer since its just as easy as fixing a rubiks cube? - Frost9999, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Jahl - I suppose you're a cancer or AIDs researcher. Good on you. The rest of us are at home solving the cube while you're at the lab saving the world.
- RevFredSanford, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6yep. both of us.
- Alex2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you pry off a corner piece and rotate it then put it back in, the cube is now unsolvable.
Choke on that computer. Not so smart now. - happytron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And you're certainly not one for wasting time, especially with superfluities like spelling and punctuation.
- anemeli, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Some of their techniques to reduce the problem size are interesting, but I still don't like brute force methods. Basically these guys reduced the problem size to be a little more manageable and they just left the computer run for days over all the combinations.
Now they will just take all the 26 move combinations, redo their transformations and see if the computer comes up with faster solutions.
Not ALL that interesting if you ask me.... Nothing beats a theoretical proof in my opinion. - Haroshia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This is relevant to my interests, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
- loganhuddleston, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7quit bitching about all the problems we have in the world. i think your being on digg does not help solve any of them.
- boneill428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4A co-op is an internship you dumbass. Northeastern is a co-op school.
- sephiroth965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He's confused that's an algorithm used in several steps of the simplest(well, easiest to learn) solution for a rubik's cube, not an actual solution.
- FallDownUA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Why wouldn't brute force be sufficient in this case? There are a finite number of starting configurations and a finite number of moves to solve each configuration.
- laelfrog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5... It would be easier to just solve it...
- imdandman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately you've been fooled into thinking that digg is an "intellectual group"...
- octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The joke is meant to be self deprecating and show appreciation of your skill. In the very least it's an attempt to make small talk.
You may have become blind to this as you have spent all of your free time playing by yourself? - ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've never been able to teach anyone; but you could argue that's just because i'm a crappy teacher. But really you only need to understand one principle to (slowly) solve it; that is how to perform actions on the cube in pairs such that only the two, three, of four cubelets involved in these two actions change, the rest of the cube remains unchanged.
Try to think of it this way (and it's easier to start with a solved cube): figure out a way to switch two cubes on the top slice such that nothing else on that slice is change--this usually means bringing cubelets down to the bottom to move them so that you can preserve the top. Once you have that, the top slice has only two cubes moved, and the bottom two slices are completed f'ed up. If you were to do exactly the reverse of what you just did, obviously the cube would revet back to its original position. But try this; rorate the top slice 90 degrees (keeping the bottom two slices in the same orientation relative to you), and now do the exxact reverse of your cube-switching moves (excluding the 90-degree top-slice rotation). The bottom two slices, being in the same orientation as they were before, will, as mentioned before, revert back to their original state. The top slice will have the two different cubes switched. Thus you have succeeded in performing a pair of actions without affecting anything else on the cube.
Of course is you miss just one move along the way you've ruined your current progress on the cube :-)
It would take a long time to solve the cube in this way alone. With practice, I've learned to get the top two slices first without the pairing technique, then use that on only the final slice.
Still takes me about 5 minutes to solve, so it's by no means the most efficient way; but it works. - murty, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Interesting article... then i fell asleep...
- BigSax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You are right, you are a crappy teacher. I gave up reading 4 sentences in to your description.
- happytron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Of course brute force proofs are sound, and there's nothing pseudo about it. Real pseudo-math statements are more like "fractals are neat" or "the continuum hypothesis is false!".
- sephiroth965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I just kill people who ***** with my rubik's cube like that. New stickers cost $$$ and I already have to replace them often enough.
- hobophobe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is a proof of the number of moves, but it doesn't give an algorithm to definitely complete a solution in 26 moves. That has yet to be accomplished.
- wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What's this guy's name again?
- Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It may be possible to solve it in 26, but I can assure, it will take me about 7,346.
Or a screwdriver... - pault107, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2His name is Daniel Kunkle.
- mmm_linux, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11ok so, a super computer can compute the solution to a Rubik's cube in a few hours and it will only take 26 moves. I on the other hand can solve the cube in under a minute using approx 100 moves. this leads me to be leave that they are wasting there time.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 