Slashdot Mirror

This is the closest you're likely to get to a 4-D Rubik's cube.

I'm on this page!

There is also a 5D version of the puzzle that I will probably never take the time to solve.

try the Rubik's Tesseract.

Since humans can't actually manipulate 4-D objects (yet), you'll have to settle for a computer simulation. Still fun though.

I think you could do this by having an array of cubes somehow interlinked... or http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

A 3x3x3x3 hypercube.

Here you go.

Wow is right. Read the "fractal" part of the superliminal link and then navigate to this 3D version that she mentions. The 3D version is sick. (also full-color and rotateable)

The spirals attempted since the 1950s are basically the 3D version as viewed from above. Mrs. superliminal apparently realized that it's a fractal (it is), and the 3D version really makes that apparent.

In whatever way you present it, natures elements are messed up ;-)

This link lists pretty much all the tables:
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html

Just wow. I didn't see yet how they account for the overlap between d/p/s/f.

If you want to learn to see in 4d, play with this 4d rubik for a while. Its a great app and it's written in Java so it should run on every OS.

http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

that 4th dimensional rotational axis means you have to reach forward in time

Depends on what kind of dimension you are using. This one uses 4 spacial dimensions (projected down to 3 dimensions due to stupid limitations of our universe).

More like this.

http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

These puzzles are true higher dimensional analogs. Every characteristic of MagicCube4D is "upped" a dimension from the original puzzle. For example, on the 3D cube stickers are 2D, but on the 4D cube, stickers are 3D. This is also true for the puzzle "faces".

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 puzzles that are more complicated in some arbitrary way like adding more stickers. There are more complicated in a way that preserves analogies to what a 4D Rubik's cube would be like in higher-d spaces (if those could exist).

I find the best way to think about things is by "dimensional analogy". Think about how a 3D cube would look to a 2D being (you'd have to project the puzzle into the 2D world to even see it), and then the ideas behind MagicCube4D start making sense. Try to draw a Rubik's cube on a flat sheet of paper and you'll see what I mean.

There is an excellent FAQ about the puzzle on the superliminal site, which I recommend. http://www.superliminal.com/cube/FAQ.txt

Is there anyone reading with the brains/training to confidently/accurately answer some questions please?

"These are Rubik's cubes of the form 3d, 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 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.

http://www.superliminal.com/pfractal.htm has an interesting representation, dating back to 1995.

While the physical cube can currently not be built, you can solve it through the portal of your computer screen. Try it: Magic Cube 4D

Apparently only 21 people have ever solved it completely without software assistance. Ack!

Don't forget the 4 dimensional rubik's cube

Also interesting for learning how to think about the projection of a 4D cube into 3D space (and actually onto the 2D space of the screen as well).

Try solving a 4-D rubik's cube. ;)

http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

My understanding of space is that it's a big zero, empty, nothing, spotted with clusters of various materials that are in the form of gases or solids.

the universe ends when there ceases to be matter. At least that's how I always thought of it. The definition is a little shakey for statistical reasons. have you ever taken a stats class(no offense intended, honest question)? if I remember correctly, there's some sort of limit or something... if you were to use particle distribution from the "center" of the universe out, you could probably make a rough guess at the 99.5% line or something to that effect. obviously we can't take inventory of every sub-atomic particle, so scientists guess. At least, that's what I'd do I suppose.

There is no physical boundary to our solar system, we just made one up in our heads to differentiate between "in here" and "out there".

again, it's not so much about physical lines as it is about theoretical lines. With our solar system, I guess I'd use the oort cloud as a limit.
if all else failed, I suppose I'd define it as the farthest-out orbiting object.

It's just a big empty. Nothing. There's no "flat plain" of space. There's nothing stopping you from flying perpendicular to the orbits of our planets and taking a long distance picture.

a "flat plain of space" is referring to gravitational(and time?) distortions. gravity wells are a great example of this. it shows gravity become stronger as it gets closer to the object. You are correct about the perpendicular movement tho... SOmething you *do* have to consider is that more or less, everything in the solar system follows the same plain... a lot of systems are like that. the milky way is like that as well.

Blackhole's do _not_ lead down a funnel.

This I'd argue, is a matter of perspective. obviously there IS no funnel, you are correct, however, if you were getting sucked down one, in those brief moments before you die, it might look or feel like you're getting sucked down a funnel. Think with your eyes, not your brain. the photons around you aren't going to becoming at you from all angles- only from above. the the sides, nothingness, below you, death. you get pulled towards death while looking up, the remaining photons hitting you from all angles lessening, making it appear that the"opening" above you is getting smaller. I wish I could describe this sensation better with words, but I can't.

They reduce to a singularity, a point in space where upon one element may occupy the same space - and presumably time as well - as another element. It's a freaking dot that weighs an infinite amount, not a vacuum cleaner.

And what would be the difference? think of it as a vacuum cleaner with a spherical mouth and a really good trash compactor built in. whatever floats your boat to understand that the gravity is very strong, and pulls stuff in.

Maybe it's because I haven't studied astrophysics or advanced quantum theory, but it just seems to me that a lot of the time when a scientist says the universe is shaped like a soccer ball, or a donut, or a freaking celtic knot, he really has no idea.

it requires a very spacial mind(no pun intended) to see things like this. play with this for a while. I remember a friend of mine telling me about a book or something where a circle meets a sphere, and tries to describe to a 2d object what a 3d world is like...adventures in flatland perhaps? it's sorta like that...

It's space, nothing, a huge empty. If it's shaped like anything than what the hell is outside?

This really depends on if *all matter* came from one singularity or multiple.... for all we know, the universe could be part of a larger megaverse where no two universes are close enough to even detect each other. wouldn't that be a trip?

signed,
-IANAAP(I am not an astro-physicist)
morgajel.

p.s. yes I hate capital letters.
p.p.s. and I can't spell either.

Although I'm not sure how I'll peel off the colored stickers and rearrange them with this software version.

Easy. Just write a hack to it. The source code seems to be available. Scroll down, and you wont miss it.

Well, hellaaahw preddy laydee!. She must have had some help with the difficult coding.

While the physical cube can currently not be built, you can solve it through the portal of your computer screen.

Magic Cube 4D

I think 6 rotations was my highest difficulty solution, 5 is hard, 4 is difficult, 3 and less is cake.

Second, a best fast algorithm for solving the cube with downloadable source code

And last, a Description of how a 4d rubik hypercube would function along with a solver program for the hypercube.

If you want a real challenge, check out http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube. htm for a 4D Rubik's Cube. I literally wasted two hours when I should have been working messing with that thing. Each face of the hypercube that you are solving is a cube of 9 colored cubes. Try it out. They have Windows AND Linux binaries, as well as Windows and Unix source code.


--
Mike Hollinger

It's a bit more difficult if you try drawing a three by three grid of grids and say that they stack up in dimensions 3 and 4, although deciding if you've won yet gets a bit difficult.

I've attempted a 6D game, but I just got a headache.

I've also seen a 4D Rubiks cube at superliminal