Slashdot Mirror


Four-Dimensional Rubik's Cube Craziness

roice writes "Rubik's junkies and puzzlers will be interested in this software rendered four-dimensional analog of Rubik's Cube. With over 1.75E120 possible combinations, it's a mind bender. Free versions are available for both Windows and Linux, and they even publish their source code for download. Solving it will get your name listed in their Hall Of Fame, and there is also a running competition for the most efficient solution. To help get you started, you can check out a solution algorithm based on techniques used to solve the popular three-dimensional version."

296 comments

  1. Great. by inertia187 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heck with solving it. There are some things that just aren't worth solving. Now where can I find a software rendered four dimensional analog of a hammer and nail?

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:Great. by YoungFelon · · Score: 5, Funny

      instead of greasing it to make it go faster, you ad space-time fabric softener.

  2. nooo by marvy666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    it took me long enough to finish the real thing.

    1. Re:nooo by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rubik's makes a special cube for "less intelligent puzzlers". You might want to pick up one of these.

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

    2. Re:nooo by EnderWiggin99 · · Score: 1

      Well, this is truly the first puzzle that will stand the test of time.

      heh heh.

    3. Re:nooo by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right. So you get a blank cube and a set of stickers...

      Why are the Do-it-yourself instructions needed?

      Hmm, who are these people who open the box and say "What no directions?! How will I tell which yellow sticker goes where?"

    4. Re:nooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is it's an all yellow cube, not that's it's DIY. They probably make it a DIY so if someone gives one to you, you can put normal stickers on it instead.

    5. Re:nooo by Fulkkari · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    6. Re:nooo by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Here's my hack (in lovely platform independent psuedocode):

      1. Empty out sourcecode files*
      2. Replace contents with 'print "You Won. Well Done."'
      3. Go and do something profitable.

      *Don't delete them though. Then it'd be a different program alltogether, wouldn't it? :P

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    7. Re:nooo by tsvk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Haha, it only took me a minute to solve the 3D version!

      Bah, as long as one minute? You are slow.

      Check out this site, especially the multimedia section. There are videos of guys that solve the cube in less than 20 seconds!

    8. Re:nooo by c64cryptoboy · · Score: 1
      I'm sure this 4D version will be just as easy...

      "Marty -- You're not thinking forth dimensionally."

      --
      I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism
  3. Not interested... by rosewood · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't even figure out the regular one. Hell, I am lucky I can tie my shoelaces in the morning!

    1. Re:Not interested... by ari_j · · Score: 4, Funny

      You sound like you could borrow my Rubik's Square. It only took me about half an hour to solve, once I realized that all the squares are the same color.

    2. Re:Not interested... by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

      are those Rubik's shoes, perchance?

    3. Re:Not interested... by k-0s · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's your problem...a Rubik's cube isn't to be used to tie your shoes. Pshhh some people.

  4. Technique number one by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apply a screwdriver to it; reassemble in the proper order.

    Um, though that may be a little hard with the program, I'll admit.

    Maybe if I apply the screwdriver to the ~~++5#Q%NO CARRIER

    1. Re:Technique number one by johnraphone · · Score: 1
      Apply a screwdriver to it; reassemble in the proper order. Um, though that may be a little hard with the program, I'll admit. Maybe if I apply the screwdriver to the ~~++5#Q%NO CARRIER

      I took a hammer to one; you have to watch out thought, I ended up losing a piece and having a worthless peace of plastic.

    2. Re:Technique number one by neurostar · · Score: 1

      Apply a screwdriver to it; reassemble in the proper order.

      My favorite "solving" technique was a lot simpler... peel off the stickers and arrange them into the solution.

      neurostar
    3. Re:Technique number one by ewhac · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a violation of your End-User License Agreement and the DMCA.

      Please lie face down on the ground, with your legs and arms apart. BSA agents will be arriving shortly to take you into custody.

      Schwab

    4. Re:Technique number one by friday2k · · Score: 1

      This is what disassemblers were made for ...

    5. Re:Technique number one by nitekrow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's a solving technique that works everytime: Simply twist and turn the cube until all sides match up. No additional tools required or embarassing adhesive related situations to deal with...

    6. Re:Technique number one by Binary+Gibbon · · Score: 0

      Implying, of course, that a Rubik's cube is more than just a useless piece of plastic to begin with.

    7. Re:Technique number one by plumby · · Score: 1

      That only works for a short time, until the glue starts to give out, the stickers fall off. and you end up with an all black cube (admittedly easier to solve).

    8. Re:Technique number one by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 1

      BSA agents will be arriving shortly to take you into custody.

      The Boy Scouts of America have a DMCA enforcement merit badge now?

  5. Now i know what to do doing my day off.. by Tukz · · Score: 0

    ok maybe not, i never did like the real ones iether.
    I'm just bored... it's 7am

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. damn it.... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you know how long I've been working on my three dimensional one? over a year. Perhaps I'm stupid, but that thing is impossible to solve. Anyone have any clue how long it would take a computer to solve your standard rubics cube through brute force?

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
    1. Re:damn it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually once you have the method down, you can solve a standard 3d cube in a couple minutes at most regardless of the initial state.

    2. Re:damn it.... by kmilani2134 · · Score: 1

      I met a girl online once who was a wiz at the rubik's cube. When we met in real life she had her rubiks cube with her and she could solve it in less than a minute. Her hands were a blur. I was very impressed, but this 4D rubik's cube blows my mind! Being red-green color blind would make this a difficult if not impossible task for me to complete. Good luck to anyone else with enough free time to try it though.

      --
      Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
    3. Re:damn it.... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative
      you know how long I've been working on my three dimensional one? over a year. Perhaps I'm stupid, but that thing is impossible to solve.

      Maybe somebody subjected you to one of my favorite old tricks. Take one corner off of a solved cube and rotate it so that the colors don't match the rest of the cube. Reassemble in this orientation. Presto: unsolveable cube.

    4. Re:damn it.... by cioxx · · Score: 1, Informative
      Perhaps I'm stupid, but that thing is impossible to solve. Anyone have any clue how long it would take a computer to solve your standard rubics cube through brute force?

      A regular computer would solve it in less than 10 seconds. Really a messy scramble of the 4D cube took only 6 seconds to solve. And it wasn't even backtracking.

      http://www.kinnetica.com/cioxx/hypercube.png
    5. Re:damn it.... by thynk · · Score: 1

      That has got to be one of the sweetest ideas for legos I've seen in a long time. I also think it's a HUGE waste of time and effort, but I guess if you've got a itch, scratch it.

      I used to be able to solve the old 3D one in about 20 mintues, but I've cheated and read the book.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    6. Re:damn it.... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 2, Informative

      thank you, that side eventually led me to my answer

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    7. Re:damn it.... by lightcycle · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading somewhere that the standard 3d Rubik can, regardless of initial state, always be solved in 17 operations.

      --

      The stars that shine and the stars that shrink
      in the face of stagnation the water runs before your eyes
    8. Re:damn it.... by hawkstone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe somebody subjected you to one of my favorite old tricks. Take one corner off of a solved cube and rotate it so that the colors don't match the rest of the cube. Reassemble in this orientation. Presto: unsolveable cube.

      Kinda funny -- I've inadvertently subjected myself to this same trick as a child. It always took so long to scramble the thing, it was easier to take it apart and put it back together in random order. Little did I realize there was a very good chance of creating an unsolvable cube.

      Furthermore, I went so far as to buy a "how to solve the rubik's cube" book. Followed every goddamn step in that thing, and was pissed when it wasn't working. Eventually I tried it on my sibling's and it worked, and I came to the conclusion that mine was defective. Not sure how long it took me to figure out how mine became defective, but the blame was fully mine. :)

      Gotta say, trying to solve an unsolveable puzzle sure kept me busy. It may have gotten my frustration tolerance up high enough that I can stand to debug those really nasty programs....

    9. Re:damn it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It always took so long to scramble the thing, it was easier to take it apart and put it back together in random order.

      Humans are not capable of acting randomly.

    10. Re:damn it.... by alzoron · · Score: 1

      Take it completely apart, mix up the pieces and and put it together with your eyes closed. It should be fairly random.

    11. Re:damn it.... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's trivial to figure out that a cube has been messed with this way. In solving a cube, you would solve the bottom layer (easy), edge pieces of the middle layer, and then the top layer, which was the hardest. In solving the top layer you had to do three things- get the corner pieces in the right places, rotate the corner pieces to be in the correct orientation, and then move the edge pieces.
      For doing all these things, there is a predefined operation you perform on the cube. There is one that rotates one corner cube clockwise and an adjacent corner cube counterclockwise. There is one that moves three top corner cubes clockwise. These are things you need to do a lot, and when I was solving Rubik's cubes for ten cents during class in sixth grade, I applied these operations to cubes all the time. In my entire career of Rubik's cube solving, I never once saw a cube that had a single corner cube twisted. There is simply no way to get there from a solved cube. Likewise, there is no way you can twist a solved cube around to accomplish a single edge flip. If you see either of those things, you know that someone has been screwing with your cube.

      Peeling the stickers can make completely illegal things, like edge pieces with two red squares. But if you take a solved cube apart and randomly put the pieces back together, the result will be in one of nine possible symmetry groups. If a position is a member of a group, you can turn the cube to reach any other position in that group. So there are a maximum of 8 different types of screwed-up cubes.

    12. Re:damn it.... by Metrol · · Score: 1

      she could solve it in less than a minute

      Back when these things were all the rage I was in Junior High. Me and some friends picked up a book that described a series of moves based on various situations the cube might be in. You'd look for patterns in the colors you were looking to fix up then perform a series of moves based on that.

      After mucking around with this over and over again all of our times got pretty darn good. I could have never solved that damn thing without some help, but with a little book smarts applied my time was right around 1 minute to solve it. A little WD-40 between the cubes helped a good bit too :)

      Give me one today, I couldn't even begin to remember where to start.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    13. Re:damn it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Geez, now you tell me...

      I thought I was a moron. Months of trying to solve it, then giving up and buying the book, then spending months trying to understand the book.... never success...

      I could have saved a year of my childhood!

      All because i was too lazy to just scramble it properly!

      Or, maybe I am just a moron.

    14. Re:damn it.... by eatdave13 · · Score: 1

      Well, next time I need my Rubik's Cube scrambled, I'll have you do it for me then ;)

      --
      "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
    15. Re:damn it.... by mlh1996 · · Score: 1

      I was about 10 when they came out, and my uncle solved it, then taught me how...his best time was around 30 seconds, I could do it in a minute or so... I actually walked into a friend of mine's kid's room once, about a year or so ago, and in the midst of conversation with my friend and his wife, picked a scrambled cube off a shelf and absent-mindedly solved it...took maybe five minutes...when I set the solved cube back on the shelf, everyone in the room just gasped...no one even realized I was doing any more than figeting...

      --
      Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig
    16. Re:damn it.... by xA40D · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe somebody subjected you to one of my favorite old tricks. Take one corner off of a solved cube and rotate it so that the colors don't match the rest of the cube. Reassemble in this orientation. Presto: unsolveable cube.

      Way back in the mists of time I tried that on my school's Rubik's wizard. I took three pieces and rotated them. Gave it to the wizard and waited. Five minutes later he returned the almost complete cube, pointing out the _one_ piece he was unable to get right as it had been rotated.

      --
      Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
    17. Re:damn it.... by Hast · · Score: 1

      I've solved it a couple of times, but I have yet to memorise all the ending tricks, so I have to cheat a bit at the end.

      The best method I've found for solving is by Lars Petrus. I also found another method eight corner which IMHO is harder, but it's good to check it out to get a grasp of what you're doing when you are twisting the cube. (It's like a mathematical descition of rotational operations.)

      Trying to solve it "just by trying" is not going to get you anywhere. Or at least extremely hard. Both of these methods work by solving parts of the cube and then expanding those parts until the entire cube is solved.

    18. Re:damn it.... by harves · · Score: 1

      Consider the following - I'll write down the letters 'a' and 'b' in some order in secret. Now, you pick a number 1 or 2. I'll then tell you the letter at that position.

      Since noone (not even us) can predict what the outcome can be, I'd say we have a random letter generator.

      Now consider that each person's brain essentially works in parallel, with only limited information exchanged between sections. Are you so sure then that humans cannot act randomly?

    19. Re:damn it.... by crankbear · · Score: 1

      I just solved mine. I'm apparently at least as stupid as you. Probably more so, since I posted a link to an .asp page on /. ...

      http://www.wedran.com/cube/index.asp

    20. Re:damn it.... by John+Zebedee · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, I went so far as to buy a "how to solve the rubik's cube" book. Followed every goddamn step in that thing, and was pissed when it wasn't working. Eventually I tried it on my sibling's and it worked, and I came to the conclusion that mine was defective. Not sure how long it took me to figure out how mine became defective, but the blame was fully mine. :)
      Y'know, I'm kinda glad to see that apostrophe there. I'm sure Mum and Dad would have been severely pissed if you'd managed to solve their kids.
      --
      The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
    21. Re:damn it.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      you know how long I've been working on my three dimensional one? over a year. Perhaps I'm stupid, but that thing is impossible to solve.

      Mine came with a manual. My 9-year-old brother and I eventually got solving speed down to about a minute, using Vasoline and pencil graphite for lube. Then we got bored with 'em, forget about 'em, and have since forgot how to do it. Plus, the Vasoline and graphite eventually merge with plastic dust and create a goopy mess.

  8. thats an easy one by becktabs · · Score: 5, Funny

    and there is also a running competition for the most efficient solution.

    duh...just peel off the stickers.

    1. Re:thats an easy one by Aliencow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't that be a violation of the DMCA ?

    2. Re:thats an easy one by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

      The sad-but-true reality is that I could actually do it the real way faster than you could get the stickerks off.

  9. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can someone plz send me a link to a trainer for this. Thx. also no-cd version much appericated.

    1. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone plz send me a link to a trainer for this. Thx. also no-cd version much appericated.
      Here's a free version
      L0L!!! I R T3H FUNNEE!!!

  10. But can I solve this one the same way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I solve this one with the same algorithm as I used for the first one:

    [1] Pry apart with screwdriver.
    [2] Reassemble in solved order.
    [3] Brag to friends that I solved it (without saying how).

    1. Re:But can I solve this one the same way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look at how many other posters made the same exact joke before you did!

  11. Party time by YoungFelon · · Score: 1

    I'm going to get good and liquored up and play with my new 4-d rubik's cube. Who wants to come?

    1. Re:Party time by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 0

      Who needs to drink when you are are looking at this thing rotate at 3 in the morning when your eyes are already glazed over...

  12. this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    mc4d-src-2_1-1.rpm 17-Jun-2001 15:22 140k
    mc4d-src-2_1.tgz 17-Jun-2001 15:22 139k
    mc4d-src-2_1.zip 17-Jun-2001 15:21 181k
    mc4d-src-2_2.zip 03-Mar-2002 17:40 183k
    mc4d-win32-bin-2_0.exe 17-Jun-2001 15:19 186k
    mc4d-win32-bin-2_1.exe 17-Jun-2001 15:21 187k
    mc4d-win32-bin-2_2.exe 03-Mar-2002 17:41 416k

    1. Re:this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know about this before the /. post? If not, then it was new. Just because its old to someone else, doesn't mean its not news to another.

      Oh yeah. Don't like whats posted? Go read something else. Pretty simple really.

  13. *Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, you have to step into the future to solve it? :-D

    1. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      the fourth dimension can also be in/out, though it usually refers to time

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    2. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most slashdot readers don't know about in and out...

    3. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by teorth · · Score: 1
      What, you have to step into the future to solve it? :-D

      Yes. Although one should be warned, prolonged exposure to four-dimensional cubes can have detrimental side-effects.

      Terry

    4. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Whether Time is a dimension (or even exists as our temporal cortexes perceive it) is questionable.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by pyrote · · Score: 1

      What, you have to step into the future to solve it? :-D

      I already did 2 weeks from now, just before the rabid monkeys took over the senate... oh wait... your not supposed to know that.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    6. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stepping into future is easy, it's getting back that's the hard part.

    7. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rabid monkeys already took over the senate, and the rest of the government! Just look at the president.

    8. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the Rubiks cube, Mister Anderson.

    9. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timecube.org... Where time is just another Dimensia...

    10. Re:*Four* dimensional Rubiks Cube? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Stepping into the future is easy. It's stepping into the past that's a bitch.

  14. I solved the 4th Dimentional Cube! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    Two years from now, but the continents all bunched together, and Hillary Rosen is president-dictator!

    That's what you get when you mess with the timeline!

    1. Re:I solved the 4th Dimentional Cube! by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      Damn, that would be almost as bad as Hillary Clinton as president-dictator. and it wouldn't be the continents all bunched up together; it would be something else.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  15. Done in under 5 minutes. by infonography · · Score: 0

    I read the book on doing it last year. Slashdot is sooo behind the times on this one.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  16. Tried it a while back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Neat game. It's been around a while. I've been able to solve 7 random twists. The first thing you have to do is start with a ordered cube and see what happens when you twist it different ways. Not consistently, though. The trick is to figure out what the last move probably was, reverse it, the one before it, reverse that, and so on. After 3 random twists, you might be able to make a bad guess and recover from it. After 7, one wrong turn is a good reason for starting over. Never was able to solve a regular 3d rubiks cube puzzle though.

  17. Is it me by isorox · · Score: 1

    or is that page black text on a dark brown background? Some people...

    1. Re:Is it me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to check your monitor calibration - it's dark gray, but equally hideous.

    2. Re:Is it me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for me, blue links on dark gray, they glow I tell you!

    3. Re:Is it me by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Yes, that page is a good example on how to NOT design a web-page. I downloaded the source code after I had marked the whole page in order to be able to read it. Alas, the source does not compile with GCC 3.2.3.

      That basically tells me that this is a piece of shit, the webpage is un-readable, the source code don't compile... Great product!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  18. Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia, 4-Dimensonal Cubes sovle you.

    What is more, it does this using a KMap ... even with better approaches - such as the Quine-McCluskey Algorithm.

    PROPS TO TED, AXJ AND MAUS.

  19. fourth dimension by ramzak2k · · Score: 0, Troll

    does that mean that there could be beyond the length bredth and height ?
    maybe thats where stuff like ghosts come from.
    they are walking all over the fourth dimension as we hang around in the third browsing in slashdot ignoring strange noises in background. wait i just heard something..

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
    1. Re:fourth dimension by scrod · · Score: 1

      Right. If I could bend my arm in a fourth spacial dimension, I could steal your liver without making a single incision.

    2. Re:fourth dimension by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Not to be a troll or anything, (please don't see it this way)

      I thought that People lived in the Fourth Dimention, hence why time plays such an important factor on us. We are just able to see and manipulate in the third. It would be a being that lives in the Fifth Dimention (whatever the hell that might be) that could see and manipulate the fourth. It's a bit late for me so my brain is a bit clouded for this Quantum Physics stuff.

    3. Re:fourth dimension by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Gotta love that.

      But it would be much more interesting to peel somebody out of the third dimension, flip them over, and put them back in. To them, it would appear as if the universe had just been mirrored left to right, but to everybody else, it would appear that that person had been mirrored left to right... IOW, his heart would be on the wrong side, if he was left handed he's now right handed, etc.

      He'd have a hell of a time reading anything, as all the text in the world is now backwards (to him at least). :)

    4. Re:fourth dimension by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Realware, by Rudy Rucker, is a fun bit of sci-fi that involves things like that happening.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    5. Re:fourth dimension by Metrol · · Score: 1

      I could steal your liver without making a single incision.

      "But I'm using it."
      - Meaning of Life

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
  20. Be pepared... by LeiGong · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just a word of warning to the foolish and brave. Before you tackle the 4^4 hypercube, make sure you buy an ergonomic mouse and mousepad. My guess is you'll probably develop super-carpal tunnel syndrome before you even you match one side of the damn cube. Also be sure to stockpile a few extra mouses, there's no knowing how many of them you'll be throwing against the wall.

    1. Re:Be pepared... by kaamos · · Score: 1
      What do you mean extra mouses? I may just go see the page and.... oops, there goes my mouse, trowing itself against the wall. And I though quake 3 arena was bad for it....

      --
      In Canada, we don't fancy things like socks
    2. Re:Be pepared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 degrees of freedom (4 translations, 6 rotations) in 4D space (people often forget two rotations, it's just an accident of 3D that rotations are "about" an axis)

      It really makes hyperdrive control systems fun...

  21. Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For those spared this atrocity, it was a Saturday morning cartoon featuring, I kid you not, a living Rubik's Cube. It was an idea that filled me with loathing even at that age, and I can't tell you what it was about because I always switched to something else as soon as it came on.



    The 1980s certainly seemed the nadir of American animation...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have all of them on DVD, they are my favorites second only to the old Pac-Man cartoons.

    2. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember (I try to blot out the memory but it keeps COMING BACK!!) But I still think the MC. Hammer cartoon was worse. Anyone remember Mr. T's show?

    3. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hammerman" was worse than Mr. T's show, although I do remember the Hammerman cartoon did use that one really cool 80s cartoon sound effect that sounds kind of like the bio blast in FFIII/VI, only cooler.

    4. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity da fool who watched Mr. T's cartoon.

    5. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've brought this cartoon up in conversations many times over the past few years anytime the subject turned to cartoons. I've never found anyone that remembered (or admitted to remembering) this cartoon. Funny that it appears on /.

      Errr, where did you get the episodes on DVD?

    6. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Oh, you bastard, why did you have to remind me of that? Yes, it was awful.

      Now I've got the sound bite of him saying "Rubik" in that attempted-cute way stuck in my head. ARGH! Actually, kind of analagous to Pikachu saying his own name in delight and sense of accomplishment. But Rubik was worse.

      How am I supposed to go to sleep with that stuff in my head? Now I'll have to watch some porn or something...

    7. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, childrens cartoons and porn... you wouldn't happen to be on some list or something would you?

    8. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by chad_r · · Score: 1

      Yes, Hammerman was the worst cartoon. Ever.

    9. Re:Anyone remember "Cubey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like that song on the radio about Pacman. Pathetic junk.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Lego Solution by johnraphone · · Score: 1

    Any idea how long it will take to have lego's solve it?

    1. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahhhhhhhh!

      It's LEGO, not LEGO's, not Lego's, not lego's, not lEGO's, not leGO's, not legO's, not lego'S, not LeGo's, not lEgO'S.

      It's not LEGOS, legos, LEGOS'.. ITS LEGO

      "I have one LEGO, I have two LEGO, I have many LEGO. I enjoy playing with LEGO"

      1 LEGO = LEGO
      2 LEGO = STILL LEGO

      No farking S!!

      Ok I feel better now. :)

    2. Re:Lego Solution by switched4OSX · · Score: 1

      Watch out, the ACs are getting fiesty tonight.

    3. Re:Lego Solution by Tukz · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, he was a bit harsh, but he was right never the less.

      Although, I probably would had picked another method to make that clear.
      But hey, freedom of speech eh?

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    4. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was the one who posted it. I wasn't trying to be harsh, just funny I guess.

      And since I just read http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp, it seems if you write it as LEGO® with a 's at the end, and not just LEGO®, you are violating their trademark.

      (notice how I didn't bold/italic LEGO®, and I put ® at the end of each instance of LEGO®...this post doesn't violate the LEGO® trademark!)

      (p.s. if you can't tell, i think its stupid that they require you to use LEGO® and not LEGOS or just LEGO... but still, call them LEGO not LEGOS because its better that way)

    5. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I... might have a solution.

      [deep breath]

      I propose... we call it...

      LEGOLAS! ... um.. thank you ..

    6. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's silly, you only have to put the (R) the FIRST time a trademark appears in a document, not EVERY TIME.

      Whenever I see somebody put the TM next to everygoddamnfucking instance of their trademark, I think about the kids I knew in school that wrote their names on everything they owned... WHY??

    7. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The plural is "LEGO® brand bricks," dammit!

      And Slashdot's shitty entity-filtering can go fuck a nun.

    8. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well.it can sometimes be right in context,
      iirc, the mindstorms LEGO systems has it's own os, so it'd be valid to refer to it as LEGOS.
      or is that LEGOOS ? ;)

    9. Re:Lego Solution by lamasquerade · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The reason behind this is pretty simple IMO, LEGO is not a countable noun. Just like water or soil. You don't say "I have one or two waters" you say "I have a little water or a lot of water". As a kid I would have said "I have heaps of lego" when boasting(which I probably did often". Of course LEGO is countable in that you can have one piece and two pieces, but there again it is pieces of lego, not legos. Actually, legos is just really stupid.

      --

      // It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis

    10. Re:Lego Solution by ZorMonkey · · Score: 1

      I dont get it, you only have 1 LEGO? No wonder you're upset, you cant make anything with that, except maybe a brick. Somebody get this guy some more lego's so he calms down a bit. Hooray for Legos!

      On a serious note, who decided that was correct? I dont like how it sounds at all. Its impossible to tell how many you're talking about. Do you have LEGO? Yep, I have LEGO. Is there LEGO in my nose? I spilled my LEGO on the floor. LEGO my Eggo.

      It reminds me of who/whom. Most people use "who" where "whom" might be technically correct. But, only pretentious gits say "whom". You git.

    11. Re:Lego Solution by stanmann · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, to be pedantic, I have one Lego® Building block, I have two Lego® Building Blocks. The s goes on block not on Lego® since Lego® is the brand and building block is the what.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    12. Re:Lego Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I own two Toyotas.

      LEGO owns you.

      Even as a child I thought the elitist ramblings on the LEGO instructions were beyond pretentious.

    13. Re:Lego Solution by GlamdringLFO · · Score: 0

      Funny, I've been running LegOS for a year now, and it works fine, though sometimes you have to root through a huge bin of source code bricks to find the libraries you need to compile a new program.

      --
      Skal! AMS
    14. Re:Lego Solution by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Chill out man. Just let it go. Yeah, leggo...

    15. Re:Lego Solution by JSR+$FDED · · Score: 2, Funny

      > It's not LEGOS, legos, LEGOS'.. ITS LEGO

      It's not "ITS", it's "IT'S".

    16. Re:Lego Solution by alienw · · Score: 1

      You should look at Myke Predko's book about programming Microchip PIC controller chips. I think he went through and replaced every instance of 'PIC' with 'Microchip PICmicro(TM) MCU(R)'. I shit you not.

    17. Re:Lego Solution by CheeseMonkey · · Score: 1

      But, only pretentious gits say "whom".

      Only pretentious gits say things like "pretentious git"!

      Oops, I said it! Crap, I'm a pretentious git!

      --
      Nothing to see here.
  24. Oh great by [cx] · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Like I didn't have enough things to do already.

    Mod it up, you laughed....DIDNT YOU?

  25. heuristic search by v_1_r_u_5 · · Score: 1

    I suspect that this could be solved in a reasonable amount of time with a heuristic search algorith, such as ACO or a genetic algorithm using the number of matches as a heuristic.

    Obviously, brute force, even at a massively parallel execution, is completely out of the question.

    1. Re:heuristic search by datan · · Score: 1

      I dunno...5 x 5 at full scramble took all of six sections (and that is with updating the display)

    2. Re:heuristic search by datan · · Score: 1

      seconds I mean...but my CPU load did go up to 100%

    3. Re:heuristic search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you are a first year CS students who has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. Get back to the books brain boy.

  26. When I was a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I memorized the solutions to the Rubik's Cube so everyone would think I was smart! Haha, fooled them!

    Now I just get drunk and masturbate a lot.

    1. Re:When I was a kid by gerf · · Score: 1

      "Now i just get drunk and masturbate a lot"

      Trollish, but my god, that's hilarious. (and worthy of being modded up)

    2. Re:When I was a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dad?

  27. Already done it. by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    I solved a Rubiks' Clock on the way home from the swapmeet I bought it at. That's it, right? Like the Rubik's Cube, but about time...

    1. Re:Already done it. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Rubiks clock is fairly easy. I solved it in about 20 minutes or so IRC.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Already done it. by duplo · · Score: 1

      rubicks clock is the easiest to solve. I can do ANY setup in 1 minute and 30 seconds...I just had to discover the way to do it each time.

      Say a face looks like:
      1 2 3
      4 5 6
      7 8 9

      1) start by making 1, 3, 7 and 9 12 O'clock (am I confusing you yet!!)
      2) make 6 say 12 by turning 2,3,5,6,8,9 to where 4 was and then turning 2,3,5,6 till 3 says 12, then turning 5,6,8,9 till 9 says 12. Now 6 should say 12. Repeat same process to get 4 to point to 12.
      3)Now you need to get 5 to be the same as 8. Say 8 is saying 3 O'clock, and 5 is saying 12 O'clock, turn 1,2,3,4,5,6 anticlockwise 3 ticks, then turn 1,2,4,5 clockwise 3 ticks and 2,3,5,6 clockwise 3 ticks. 5 should now say 3 O'clock (same as 8).
      4)Now you need to get 5 & 8 the same as 2. Say 2 is pointing to 1 O'clock, turn 4,5,6,7,8,9 clockwise 2 ticks, then turn 4,5,7,8 anti-clockwise 2 ticks, then 5,6,8,9 anti-clockwise 2 ticks. Now 2, 5 and 8 should all be pointing to the same number, and 1,3,4,6,7,9 should all be pointing to 12 O'clock.
      5) to get 2,5 and 8 pointing to 12, turn every clock clockwise 1 tick, then turn 1,2,4,5,7,8 anti-clockwise 1 tick, then 2,3,5,6,8,9 anticlockwise 1 tick. The whole face should now be 12 O'clock.
      6) Repeat the proceducre for the other side. Note: the good side will not be ruined as only the corner ones will move, and go back to 12 O'clock each time.

      Hope I havn't confused you !

  28. How to solve it by TheFairElf · · Score: 1

    Go to Options->Solve

  29. cube? by djdead · · Score: 1

    it's not really a cube is it? i mean, that implies n^3 but this is n^4 so is it really a rubiks quartic?

    --
    -1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
    1. Re:cube? by scrod · · Score: 1

      No, it's a Rubiks hypercube.

    2. Re:cube? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      So, it's a hypercube (4-dimensional), but we can't visually comprehend that so we look at the 3-dimensional shadow...well, actually a 2-d perspective of a 3-dimensional shadow...on a 16-bit OS on a 32-bit computer, etc, etc, 2-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition?

      I'm so confused. I'll go play with that triangular pyramid puzzle...at least I could occasionally solve it without consulting a cheat book.

  30. Is this actualy 4D ? by Forge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know. It looks like a more complex 3D version that's just real togh to build with plastic.

    Maybe it's because I read some quack's claim that the 4th dimension was time. In which case a 4D rubics cube would solve itself over time or be onsolvable because it rescrambled while you were trying to solve.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by cascino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe it's because I read some quack's claim that the 4th dimension was time. In which case a 4D rubics cube would solve itself over time or be onsolvable because it rescrambled while you were trying to solve.
      The 4th dimension is whatever you define it as. There's no "true" 4th dimension. Einstein had the idea that time could be treated in a fashion similar to that of the spatial dimensions, and so, in his work, he defined the 4th dimension as the temporal dimension.
      However, for this program's purposes, it's assumed that we're talking about the 4th *spatial* dimension. You can (kinda) visualize it if you think of the progression of first 3 dimensions: a line (1st d) can be rotated 90 degrees to itself to form a square (2nd d) which can be rotated 90 degrees to itself to form a cube (3rd d). The 4th dimension is thus hypothesized as the space defined by a cube rotated 90 degrees to itself.
      (Granted, I'm no mathematician, so if someone has a better understanding, please correct me.)

    2. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you've ever read the story "And He Build a Crooked House" by Robert Heinlein, it contains a very good description of what a four-dimensional hypercube would look like. Imagine a small cube in the middle, six cubes surrounding it (one on each side, squashed together so that they share faces), and one big cube on the outside. Alternately, imagine two intersecting cubes (one corner of each cube is in the middle of the other cube), where each face of one cube is connected to each face of the other cube by another cube. Confused yet? So am I! Read the story, it's quite interesting.

      This puzzle uses the first model mentioned above, except that you can only see seven cubes at once (the outer cube is hidden so that it won't block the view of the others). If you rotate the model (with Shift-left or Shift-right click), the outer cube comes into view.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    3. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, your description is pretty accurate. (I'm speaking from my BSEE background that included 23 credit hours of math.) In the mathematical sense, dimensions are just different axes of 'freedom' in some system. Typically, these are orthogonal (at right angles to each other, aka. linearly independent), but they need not be.

      As humans, we tend to put the first 3 dimensions into spatial terms to allow us to visualize the system. This works 'ok' as long as the axes are orthogonal.

      The idea of 4th dimension as time, is, as you state, a way of unifying time with the other three spatial dimensions. Interestingly, that seems to say that the "speed of light" is actually essentially a unitless quantity--just some constant. (It does have a sqrt(-1) in there.) :-)

      --Joe
    4. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Metrol · · Score: 1

      Read the story, it's quite interesting.

      I just read that story! Found it at a used book store a couple of weeks ago. It was in a collection of short stories entitled "6 x H". Doubt if that one is still in print, but it might be worth a look around the net for it.

      Not only is it a fascinating look at someone building an impossible house, but it's especially fun for anyone who has ever bought a house before it was built. :)

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    5. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by blincoln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a Java animation that will show you a 2D projection of a 4D hypercube:

      http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html

      It's really tough to wrap your head around another spatial dimension. Books like Flatland and Realware make the comparison to a 2D person's world being interrupted by one of us.

      For example, if you were 2D, living on your flat plane, and a 3D person passed an orange through the plane, you would perceive it as a round shape which grew out of nothingness, got bigger and changed shape for awhile, then shrank and disappeared.

      A 3D person could also see into your house, because a 2D person would just build four walls and no ceiling or floor. Similarly, a 4D creature could see through all of us and our buildings, because we only build in three dimensions.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    6. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      which would make for some fucked-up mechanical ideas... imagine an engine that runs in the 4th dimension....

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by BernardMarx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A better way to visualize a hypercube (and to draw one on paper) is as follows:

      0. Start with a point. Zero dimensions. (Draw a dot.)

      1. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't used yet. (Draw a horizontal line from the dot, and put a dot at the end of it.)

      Now you have a line, one dimension.

      2. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. (Draw vertical line from each dot, and a horizontal line connecting the two new dots.)

      Now you have a square, two dimensions.

      3. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. Since we have run out of actual dimensions on our sheet of paper, we will have to create virtual dimentions. Sorry if I've offended a topologist, I don't know the technical terms. (Draw one diagonal line from each of the four dots of the square, to the top and right. Connect the four new dots with another square. Most of you are probably familiar with this 2D projection of a 3D cube.)

      Now you have a cube, three dimensions.

      4. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. We have to create more virtual dimensions, so this might seem a little tricky. (Imagine a cube in 3D-space, and imagine what it would look like with lines protruding from the center of the cube, through each corner. Draw these eight lines, then connect their endpoints, one square on top of the cube, one square on the bottom, then four vertical lines connecting each of the two new squares.)

      If you did it correctly, you should end up with what looks like a cube, encased within a larger cube, with lines from the corners of the inner cube to the corresponding corners of the outer cube.

    8. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by wilddur · · Score: 1

      That was helpfull... But it must be better with 3d goggles

    9. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by yakko+nef · · Score: 1

      I don't know who you heard say the fourth dimension was time that you are calling a quack but Dr. Michio Kaku (www.mkaku.org) says it in his book Hyperspace and he is pretty well respected in the physics community.

      Time is pretty obvious as the fourth dimension when you stop and think about it. If I say that I want to meet at the corner of First Ave. and Main St. on top of the bus stop we have three dimensions. Everyone can grasp that easily. The foruth dimension comes into play when you say we should meet friday at noon. That is why the term Space-time is used.

    10. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by packeteer · · Score: 1

      One example of 3 dimensions not being at 90 degrees of each other is latitude, longitude, and altitude. Any point can be defined with these measurements but its not usually what we call dimensions.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    11. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      "linearly independent" isn't the same as "at right angles to each other" (perpendicular). It's more like "not parallel". As long as two vectors are not parallel, you have a vector basis.

    12. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the description is OK, I'd leave out the 90 degree business though. Just imagine you were 1-D or 2-D and look at something 3-D. That is how 4-D and 5-D looks to us.
      (I.e. Think about a square as a line where at each point is a line, a cube as a line of squares, then a 4-D hypercube is a line of cubes.)

    13. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      Well, I prefer to think of it as 2 cubes, with corners connected, but I suppose you could also think of it as 6 cubes that share faces.

      I mean, same way as ordinary cube can be thought of as just 2 squares with corners connected, or 6 squares.

      Perhaps it's best to use both models to have a clearer mental image of how a hypercube behaves when you turn it.

    14. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by adamruck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      after taking calc III, Ive come up with a great way to describe 4d objects.

      Example, take a room, it has 3 standard dimensions, now lets add another dimension, lets say temperature. Now we have a 4d object, we could even try and make a function to model temperature based on postion, temp = f(x,y,z);

      You can even do neat things like make 3d objects out of 4d objects by taking a level surface of the 4d object. In simpler terms, take all of the points in the room that are one temperature, that will form a 3d object.

      I think the easiest way to portray a 4d object is by using colour. Image taking a pair of thermal gogles and walking around a room. The only problem is that a colour approach cant be used for rubix cubes, becuase colour is already used to distinguish different sides of the cube. Perhaps to visualize a 4d rubix cube the different sides of the cube could be represented by shapes, or perhaps a numbering system. I think that taking the 4d cube and trying to flatten it into 3d looks ugly.

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    15. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's 4D flattened to 3D flattened to 2D (as virtual 3D) stored on a drive with a 1D measurement of storage space. D'ya get it?

    16. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by zackbar · · Score: 1

      Since there seems to be 7 cubes, it probably isn't actually a real 4d cube, although I don't know for sure.

      There was a sci-fi channel movie called "HyperCube". They showed what they described as a 2d rendering of what it might look like. Can't describe it though.

    17. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by zackbar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh yeah, that makes it *MUCH* easier to understand.

    18. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah... after writing some assembly its not that hard to understand

    19. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The 4th dimension is whatever you define it as. There's no "true" 4th dimension. Einstein had the idea that time could be treated in a fashion similar to that of the spatial dimensions, and so, in his work, he defined the 4th dimension as the temporal dimension.


      Sorry, but you've got this back-asswards.
      Dimensionality is a mathematical concept with defined properties. What Einstien did was look at space and time together and showed that time worked like a physical manifestation of that mathematical concept. (That space-time is a 4D coordinate system).

      Saying that there is no "true" fourth dimension is like saying there are no "true" squares. It's true to some extent, but it misses the point.

    20. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by SheepHead · · Score: 1
      Ah, I read that story years ago and I mention it whenever I try to explain the fourth dimension (hmm, happens more often than you'd think) but I couldn't ever remember what the heck that story was called. I believe I read it in an anthology edited by Asimov, but that doesn't put you on much of a course towards finding the actual author and story.

      So, thanks! Totally unexpected. Now I'm off to find it and read it again. It's been many years.

      --
      7d9e63e9501751ff4bf9307989d5623d *SheepHead
    21. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by zackbar · · Score: 1

      Troll? Give me a freaking break. I *wasn't* trolling.

    22. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by nedric · · Score: 1
      Slashdot readers seem really embarassing on this topic:

      Most of what has been described above is wrong: Assigning colors to a 3d object only projects it's surface, so that can't describe a (for instance) concave 4d surface.

      Other posters have described "The 4th Dimension" by instead describing a tesseract which is just a helpful device to help our 3D brains understand the extended connectedness of 4D objects. The 7 cubes method does not describe a hypercube, it describes a hypercube that is "unfolded" into a wholly-3d object so that we can "see" it. Six sqaures on paper is 3d since the paper is in the 3d world, but it's not a 3d cube until you fold it up...

      4 dimensions simply means adding a coordinate to our world's three. You have x, y, z. Add w, and you have a four-dimensional system that can be used to describe things like Rubiks puzzles. Einstein simply used the convenient method of thinking of time as a value for a similar extra coordinate to describe his theories, he was not defining "the" 4th dimension "as time".

      Really, the various stories like Flatland are good at helping people understand these concepts, but you have to realize that it's not magic, it's just another degree of freedom in space. For the puzzle, this means a large order more possible states == harder == higher nerd points for solving it!

      --
      evolution IS god.
    23. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An example of a 4 dimensional rubicks cube is 3 3x3 cubes how the pieces interchange between the 3 cubes is beyond my current intoxicated state, but simplisticly this is what it is.

    24. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A 3D person could also see into your house, because a 2D person would just build four walls and no ceiling or floor. Similarly, a 4D creature could see through all of us and our buildings, because we only build in three dimensions.

      Not necessarily, we could be using Xth dimentional materials without realizing it.
      Imagine a 2 dimentional creature building walls but they're actually 3rd dimention plates which happen to exist in his world as a simple line of the given length. They could still be any shape other than where they interact with his world. and we could manipulated them, push/pull, twist from the third dimention, which is actually *scarier* then the boogey-men being able to Watch us. They might have hooks they could use to alter damned near anything. At the very least they'd have the top-down perspective which would make us seem simplistic, and therefore easy to manipulate. Based on those assumptions, there's good reason to believe there's no such thing as Xth dimentional creatures or we'd see more random activity in your world, either purposfully or accidentally. Then again, what makes the weather?

    25. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      well, the popularly accepted answer is that weather system are formed due to the Earth's somewhat wobbly orbit and the uneven heating of the Earth, due to constant rotation and varied surface composition, which results in areas that hold heat at different rates. Which in turn creates wind currents and areas of different humidity, however the implications of Xth dimentional creatures having a percievable effect on our planes of existence is still a valid possibility.

      After all, even in our limited 3-dimentional world, we have still only explored one planet thoroughly.

    26. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by atomicdragon · · Score: 1

      Things get really wierd in four dimensions. When I took a topology class, we proved that in four dimensions its impossible to tie your shoelaces. In other words no matter how you wrapped up two strings, they would fall apart. I'd imagine doing more complicated things like machinary would be really wierd and beyond our ability to visualize.

    27. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by Forge · · Score: 1

      Funy thing is everybody else saw right throgh my sarcasm. Sure, I'm not deap enogh into this stuff to know Dr. Kaku. I am however aware that Einstine said the same thing.

      "You'r calling Einstine a quack? You can't be serius"
      "No. I can't, that's the point."

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    28. Re:Is this actualy 4D ? by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      Nothing is the fourth dimension. Our universe has three space dimensions and one time dimension. You can no more call time the "fourth dimension" than you could call the x, y and z axes the "first," "second" or "third" dimension.

      As for spacetime, that comes into play because I lied earlier; there really isn't a distinction between "space" and "time" dimensions. Einstein's equations show us that space and time can be measured in the same units, and that coordinate transforms can be done that "mix" space and time, just like you can "mix" the x and y axes with vectors.

      I suggest reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics, or, if you can't afford the whole set, Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces. They're not nearly as easy to read as "general audience" physics texts like Dr. Kaku's, and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces and the full Lectures on Physics require high-school level calculus knowledge. Still, they will help you come to a mathematical rather than intuitive knowledge of relativity and curved space; it was only by reading these books that I really began to grasp Einstein's theories.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  31. TIME ZONES are a RIDICULOUS LIBERAL MYTH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here for details!

  32. whoa by frink_exp · · Score: 0, Troll

    stay off the crack, dude.

    --
    'Q' is for Dr. Tran
  33. I'm not touching that thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw Cube2: Hypercube, and I'm not going anywhere near 4 dimensional objects. One room will try to kill you by flame, then another will freeze you, and some rooms mess with time! It's crazy!

  34. On a similar note... by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    I've found a very sparce selection of downloadable Go games for GNU/Linux, (GNU Go is the only one I know of). I'm surprised there's not more renderings of this awesome ancient game.

    Still, when you got a four-demensional rubik's cube goin' on, life is pretty good :)

  35. 2D representation by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    The software is just a 2 dimensional representation. I find it almost impossible to solve the normal cube in the software version and I can solve a physical cube in under 5 minutes. A 4D cube might be interesting but not a 2D representation of one. I like the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cubes at rubiks.com.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  36. os x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any chance to get it compiled on os x? Me no h4x0r.

    1. comment out #include 'malloc.h' in MagicCube.h
    2. ./configure
    3. make

    I get following...

    EventHandler.cpp:80: warning: ISO C++ forbids taking the address of an unqualified non-static member function to form a pointer to member function.
    Say `&EventHandler::undo_cb' ......and other lines with same error

    1. Re:os x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mac is a lot more of a real computer then any gayish pc. And os X is very well designed, way better then you ever will get your lame gnu/linux/x configured.

    2. Re:os x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, a mac is far engineered far better than any other computer on consumer markets and so is its current OS.

      The only problem comes from the 'mac user'.

    3. Re:os x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it turns out, it does not compile under FreeBSD or Debian either. So you run the winblowz binary on your "real os"?

      I just love l33t windows 95 users.

  37. how many... by Zugok · · Score: 1

    mice/trackballs do I need to install to solve this thing? Alternatively, can I use mouse and keyboard? Ah heck I might as well be playing Counter-strike.

    --
    "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    1. Re:how many... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " - performs a 4D "twist" on the selected "face" counter-clockwise about the axis from the center of that "face" out through the center of the selected "sticker"."

      It just beeps at me. I can't even figure out how to twist it.. Maybe that's a sign..

  38. Not complete by Komi · · Score: 1
    Actually this is not a complete 4D rubik's cube. A hypercube had 8 sides, each of which are cubes, you can only see seven at any time in this program. The eigth one is there though; when you rotate a side, you will see cubies being rotated in from off-screen, they just don't show it. But since they don't show it, you cannot actually rotate that face. That would be like having regular 3D rubik's cube and not be able to turn the white face.

    Still I love this program. I'm a big fan of rubik's cubes and of geometry of higher dimensions.

    Komi

    --
    The ultimate goal of science is to unify all forces of nature to a single law that can be silk-screened onto a T-shirt.
    1. Re:Not complete by bad_fx · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be like having regular 3D rubik's cube and not be able to turn the white face.

      Not quite. It's like having a physical 3D rubik's cube and not being able to see all 6 faces at the same time. You can however turn a physical cube around so you can see the hidden face. It's a similar idea in this one. The way to see the hidden "face" is given in the FAQ:

      Q: I can turn a real cube around so that I can see the hidden faces, can
      I do something similar to see the invisible eighth "face"?
      A: Yes. If you hold down the control key and click either mouse button
      on any part of a "face", the puzzle will "rotate" in 4D until that "face"
      is in the center. That "rotation" will bring the invisible face into the
      same position as the one you clicked on. The "face" on the opposite side
      of the puzzle will "rotate" out until it turns inside-out and becomes the
      invisible "face". This "turning inside-out" motion is very typical of 4D
      "rotations". Notice that control-clicking either mouse button on the
      central "face" does nothing because it's already in the center.

    2. Re:Not complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picky, picky. You can rotate the green surface when it comes into view.

    3. Re:Not complete by xyzrgb · · Score: 1

      you can even rotate it while it's invisible by holding down the '3' key while clicking on the central face. i'll leave it as an excercise to the faq readers to figure out why.

  39. mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod it up, you laughed....DIDNT YOU? ...lame.

  40. We're all nerds here, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I don't mind confessing that I regularly solve the 3D cube in under two minutes. If I'm lucky, and corners align nicely, then under ninety seconds. Like most humans, I find it rather difficult to visualize 4D objects. I can't imagine however that it would take more than a few days to adapt to the 4D cube. But where will the madness end? Will some depraved geek (me) be screaming for someone to code a 17D cube? A 139D cube? Hyperdimensional cubes are an abomination! If it can't be expressed in reality, then it is a sin.

    Posted AC cause I'm drunk as hell.

  41. Most efficient solution by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) Click OPTIONS
    2) Click SOLVE

    Two clicks... anyone do better?

    --
    I am NOT a man!
    I am a free number!
    1. Re:Most efficient solution by fidget42 · · Score: 5, Funny
      1) Click OPTIONS
      2) Click SOLVE

      Two clicks... anyone do better?
      Umm..
      3) PROFIT?
      --
      The dogcow says "Moof!"
    2. Re:Most efficient solution by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Two clicks... anyone do better?

      I can do it in one click, but I'm not allowed to describe it, since it's patented.

    3. Re:Most efficient solution by jsse · · Score: 1

      Two clicks... anyone do better?

      Do it anything better might violate my patent on "One-click problem solver".

    4. Re:Most efficient solution by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Funny, I just clicked 'solve', so I guess I've got you beat.

      (the linux client doesn't have an "options" menu, it just has all the buttons along the bottom of the screen).

    5. Re:Most efficient solution by Fulkkari · · Score: 1
      Umm..
      3) PROFIT?

      No. You forgot the ??? part.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    6. Re:Most efficient solution by gotr00t · · Score: 1

      On the UNIX version, all you have to do is

      1. CLICK SOLVE

      that's 1 click. I did better than you :P

  42. *laughs* by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Well it's not news, and it's not even close to new, but it sure is nerdy :)

    Did anyone not have a cube?

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  43. Not nearly as hard as figuring out the Time Cube.. by mbw314 · · Score: 0

    "Hey stupid - are you too dumb to know there are 4 different simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth? Greenwich 1 day is a lie. 4 quadrants = 4 corners, and 4 different directions. Each Earth corner rotates own separate 24 hour day. Infinite days is stupidity. Most math is erroneous. You are educated stupid."

    Time Cube!!!

  44. No it won't by Rhinobird · · Score: 2, Funny

    Um, though that may be a little hard with the program, I'll admit.


    No it won't, we just have to wait for someone to come up with a software implimented 4 dimensional hammer...there's probably already one written for emacs...

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  45. Re:by Tukz (664339) on 09:06 PM -- Sunday June 08 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DUDE! There is more than one timezone in the world.

  46. Solve it in 20 seconds.. the video by djhertz · · Score: 0

    I was never able to get the hang of the cube, but this this guy sure did. His web site has more info.. but the video is the coolest part. FYI need quicktime to watch the video.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
  47. Finally, a cool article! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Wow, today I'm impressed with Slashdot because they really are running a "news for nerds" story... And how!

    Seriously, I sometimes complain about goofs and stupid decisions made by the editors, but I'm a fair person, so ... way to recognize a cool story!

  48. Great by suso · · Score: 1

    Now if someone would only release a patch to stop that infernal beeping when you click in the wrong place on the window. xset and setterm seem to have no effect.

  49. key to the universe survival by lingqi · · Score: 1

    wasn't there a place where hot and sultry female villians are willing to perform, erm, certain acts, in return for a rubix cube like that? Maybe this is the updated version of the intergalactic somethingoranother - beware if women on the street starts to act suspiciously intimate once you start solving this thing!

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  50. You were close... by bazmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    The best way to solve a given cube is called "God's algorithm" to us Rubik's geeks (I can average about 50 s. solving a cube, which is ok, but not phenomenal). It's 18 moves. The method behind it is far too complicated for a person to do without a computer to assist, but using a rather simple method, a person can very easily solve a cube in around 65 moves, but slowly. The record-breaking solution times are closer to a hundred moves, but rather than remembering a move-efficient but thought-intensive way to solve it, one remembers many more algos that whose situation can be recognized much more quickly.

    And for the previous posts asking how long it takes a computer to do it... it's very, very low. Under a second. Many people can do it, manually (a computer just has to give the moves, it can ignore the time required to actually turn the cube) in under 20 seconds (For the people out there in disbelief, Dan Knights has a video of him actually doing it in 17, it's for real. I won't post the link, because I'm not going to be responsible for slashdotting his site).

    There's a huge difference between a computer solving it "brute force", and a person or computer solving it through established algorithms. By brute force, just twirling the cube until the solution popped up, it would take on average however long it takes your computer to process half of the possible combinations. That's quite a long time. However, a computer solving a cube how we would, focusing on time rather than least amount of moves, could easily solve more than one a second.

    1. Re:You were close... by rokicki · · Score: 1

      There are known cube positions that require 20 moves, so it's at least 20 moves. It could be more; we just don't know.

      I've had an optimal cube solver running for a while on a home box, and the distribution of best solution lengths looks like (so far):

      5 15
      101 16
      1265 17
      3334 18
      194 19

      So 20-move cubes are probably pretty rare.

  51. Oh my god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my god ...

    Oh my god ...

    That was the sound of my head popping. There's no way I'm going to find the time to wrap my head around this problem.

    And you know, that's ok. Just knowing that the challenge is out there is enough for me to live with. ;)

  52. Not "Cubey", by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Information on the "Rubik, The Amazing Cube" television show

    Premiered on ABC: September 10, 1983-September 1, 1984.

    The series ran for 1 year, and had a total of 12 episodes. It was
    originally broadcast as "The Pac-Man/Rubik, The Amazing Cube Hour"
    on Saturday mornings in colour with each Rubik segment lasting
    22 minutes.

    The Plot
    --------

    Rubik is discovered by a young boy (Carlos) who brings the colourful cube
    to life - after he aligns all the cube's sides - an sets out on a magical
    adventure tour along with his brother and sister, Renaldo and Lisa.
    The series was rebroadcast in the spring of 1985 as a mid-season replacement.
    Ruby-Spears Enterprises produced the series.

    Voices
    ------

    Rubik: Ron Palillo
    Carlos: Michael Saucedo
    Renaldo: Michael Saucedo
    Lisa: Jennifer Fajardo
    Ruby Rodriguez: Michael Bell
    Marla Rodriguez: Angela Moya

    Episode List
    ------------

    "Rubik, The Amazing Cube," "Rubik And The Lucky Helmet," "Back Packin'
    Rubik," "Super Power Lisa," "Rubik And The Mysterious Man," "Rubik And The
    Pooch-Nappers," "Rubik And The Buried Treasure," "Rubik And The Science
    Fair," "Honolulu Rubik," "Rubik's First Christmas," "Rubik In Wonderland"
    and "Saturday Night Rubik."

    1. Re:Not "Cubey", by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the name of the main character again?

  53. Other 4D games by Isomer · · Score: 1
    I wrote a two player web based 4d three-in-a-row game one evening when I was bored.

    I didn't find it particularly hard to play, but some people do. I think it's a good way to practise thinking about things abstractly.

    Anyway, find a friend, and play a few games, see how you do. The rules are slightly different, you play until you fill the board, and the person at the end with the most numbers of three in a row wins.

  54. Solutions.... by 222 · · Score: 1

    I dont recall the name, but a friend of mine actually had a book on solving the original in 15 minutes or less, and it actually seemed to have a solid strategy base behind it.
    it was written by some math professor who spend a whole summer obsessing (much like the rest of america at the time) with the cube...
    at any rate, i wish id read the damn book.... for some reason, since i work with computers, people expect me to be able to solve puzzles like that in real time, while concurrently explaining how to fixed their botched aol 3.0 installations....
    gah

    1. Re:Solutions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your work with computers is tech support?
      you poor bastard.

    2. Re:Solutions.... by geggibus · · Score: 1

      I wanted to know how to solve the cube, so i went to the library, found a book, somebody else had it, so i reserved it, went home, got bored, took the cube, went for a walk in the forrest, found a nice stone, sat there for 8 hours with the cube(a lot of people might thing i'm a wierdo... ;), found out how to solve it. Next time i went to the library they had the book, it was the same system..(except that in the book the cube was turned 90 degrees). Trained for speed for a few days, always did it under 2 minutes, something like 55s was the best time if i remember correctly. Those were the days, now i'm to lazy to even pick the cube up from my floor...

  55. Java Applet by BranchingLichen · · Score: 1

    Here is a neat Java applet of the 3D version.

  56. Open Source? Open sores! by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

    and they even publish their source code for download.

    I guess you haven't tried to get it compiled? No luck with a straight ./configure && make under FreeBSD nor Debian.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:Open Source? Open sores! by Brian+Blessed · · Score: 1

      Hello,

      I found that GCC didn't like one of the files, so I changed it and here is a patch.
      The other thing it needed was "-Wno-deprecated" adding to the WFLAGS line in the Makefile (after running ./configure).

      Save the rest of the post after the patch command to a file called ehpatch, and then run the following two commands (and then make).
      cat ehpatch |mimencode -u |bunzip2 -c >EventHandler.patch
      patch EventHandler.cpp EventHandler.patch

      QlpoOTFBWSZTWf8IcigAAwR/gCIQ ACBRdn//P+/+8L/v//BQBL5yaNABVAoYjUoD/VQB+qaA
      GgAA AAAAADjJk00wmRkDAjE0YIwg0aYABBKeqKnlMygAGmhoAAAGmm IAADjJk00wmRkDAjE0
      YIwg0aYABAqSmkwSYBCTxCnjVPUbJl DTMmpjKMm1Gn6UvRJ1pVNYqkuuS6qpsqdO/q49WTBz
      tzaDKq 6dL8MMXTUqM1y4zFVSWSCyUJDstKqqrDCIqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqr plMACMRBF0gEAM8A
      rJ+xgT5Pgn4JqceXDl5OXPDDDDDDDuDW f4Z55555/N+tZVvkutoXNNNNNNNGdZVpJdbWkOpI
      N0QdQxgY gRPCIHCAOUASegGNiMaVVVVLRJJJJ7yLjvlFVFKihc7DYhZ8SU Rt7E9n2PfVoi+k
      vsvq0RgQ51KqUji3uTa5OLzoPTB2pO0nXy 5VSqqJOprSl9d9u0lBSVlytVplJVlKWwSlOYhZ
      slOTZPwqMw sBRi44HS5ZrM2jNqvMGl+K9is7larzBrxWYubJqvMGC5g6GBu3 VWoxamvJeyY4
      1VVuYYsDJw16NGmlVouu1YVe3tWq61VfySJ0 yD1QkZllRVVSRjIPQTWF0g60T8Dsd7sU9hT2
      n3s3nSbUiV6V ZvM6x6GL+KRNa9c+OCqe43vuUZPcdBPtkGj+7sOT2SSOhmcHSx eBZ+b4PG/J
      +L4Pi+TNweBKanBqbmTU4GS5wdzbwquBqZqfob 3+nNeyYJ+YfElJ7kmif5eg9KSUcUuqq8cW
      tV11x3H6rO/13S 667EopEn/CfWfJJ6PVcT/ZrSP4D7R9ZP2JUgyy6C870ibE8zcz SJuI+oiq
      r4Iv4MN+9ge6mdGGdOForrVV0iIIthBOfmEZA5OS FiyR5UFxJ60sQZSJPqqq0CRIqqX9m3mT
      KREJERItGMRaDELZ dLggi8LnjWMpJGEiTIe0/6MWBoYO8g6CbW1kbhxOScyDkH3HJJ wSelIs
      k96ROonEsHgYjduquLcH6PoSkLm6RJTJseB+5OJFiQ 2MC0iH3sWp4yU2ptSzGSRTWb1CnI7k
      jyLiQ8jU3nzO4vWPmc Ha3bqrdIGjxEX39oUBOd8KikKAMsMkgIELhYsKqqqrVVXPZSqx Tm8S
      bC5J5avzta1rSSMCzFqXryyJNSanmFksdRkbCQskwIPE SHrDwfR9HDh5U/Egp1k8++qnukke
      9I2k60OAdL7E9if1T+yf untTM2FHqJ4gfxdyRThQkP8Icig=

    2. Re:Open Source? Open sores! by zod1025 · · Score: 1


      Thanks, that totally worked! Yay, open source.

      --

      -ZOD-
  57. legos? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    I used to play with lego's when I was a kid, but I sort of grew out of them once I started playing with my computer. I guess you could call it LEGOS for grownups :)

    So, you're probably wondering what I did with all my LEGO's, right? Well, I gave my Lego's to my grandmother, who organized the lEGO's by color and then sold the leGO's at a garage sale.

    I guess that's the story of my legO's.

    Oh yeah, LeGo's, lEgO's, LEGOS'! Ha! :)

  58. Simoniker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck is this new "simoniker" guy ?

    So far he hasn't posted any of the communist/socialist propaganda that is oh so typical of michael sims, the enemy of economic progress, so that's a good start.

    Let's see if this can keep up . . .

  59. Interesting(evil) trick(torture): by NegativeK · · Score: 1

    If you pop off a corner of a solved Rubiks cube, rotate it 120 degrees, and pop it back on, it becomes unsolvable. You should try it on someone you hate, or someone you know who won't murder you repeatedly. >.>

    --
    This statement is false.
    1. Re:Interesting(evil) trick(torture): by akpcep · · Score: 1

      Is being murdered more than once technically possible?

      --
      Hmmm.
    2. Re:Interesting(evil) trick(torture): by Drakin · · Score: 1

      *scratches head* It depeds on just how strict you want to be about death... there's people who have been for all intents and purposes "dead", for a very short time, then brought back...

      SO it might be technically possible, but it also depends on the definition of murder (ie, do they have to stay dead after you do it for it to count?)

    3. Re:Interesting(evil) trick(torture): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naturally. Read Life, the Universe, and Everything. Can't remember the name of the victim in question (the supposed murderer was Arthur Dent, of course).

    4. Re:Interesting(evil) trick(torture): by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      That's probably closer to manslaughter or, at most, negligent homicide.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  60. Re:Here's her picture ... by akpcep · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That is a man in drag and I claim my £5.

    --
    Hmmm.
  61. Other games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For other multi-dimensional puzzle games, try 54321, which consists of five games in four, three, or two dimensions, for one player.

  62. Um....4th dimension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that time was the 4th dimension...

  63. Rotates too fast by rollingcalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My problem with this is that it rotates so fast, that I can't figure out what the effect of a rotation is supposed to be. The speed also makes learning by observing it solving itself useless ... just some flashes and 0.25 seconds later it's done. Any way to slow it down?

    --
    ---------
    There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    1. Re:Rotates too fast by denzombie · · Score: 1

      Try a different system. I'm running debian/testing with Xfree86 4.2.0, my wife has a similar system but a different model radion card. It behaves like you describe on hers, but works on mine.

      Why? I dunno and it's her computer. Let her fix it.

      --
      --- Evil robots don't kill people, Mad scientists kill people.
  64. Popular? by jpkunst · · Score: 1

    ... popular three-dimensional version.

    Popular? Do people still play with this? I haven't even seen one in the last 15 years or something (I'm in Europe). My impression was that after the initial 'craze' everyone got collectively sick of it somewhere in the mid-eighties and it kind of faded away. It was an interesting puzzle though, not that I ever really tried to solve it.

    JP

  65. Re:Help me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Down, not across.

  66. Movie References by HeXetic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Puzzled by the cube? Try renting two (relatively low-budget, unknown) sci-fi flicks. - Cube: Buncha people, trapped in a buncha cubes, with a buncha deadly traps. - Cube 2: Hypercube: Buncha people, trapped in a hypercube, with less deadly traps but more confusion as to wtf is going on. Both movies are fairly puzzling in their own right, with that sort of "unknown" sci-fi ending that is commonly found in lower-budgeted movies (e.g. Pi).

    --
    http://www.chmodoplusr.com/
    1. Re:Movie References by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      Try renting two (relatively low-budget, unknown) sci-fi flicks. - Cube,... Cube 2: Hypercube.

      Egad, I hope you're kidding! I'm pretty sure that there is a UN resolution being debated that will specifically put Cube and Cube 2 on the list of crimes against humanity.Do not watch either Cube movie, here's why!

  67. Congratulations by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

    You are a bitch to the corporation that makes LEGOs.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:Congratulations by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Ha! Not me! I use pirate legos!
      3y3 4m +h4 m4D l33t! ... pirate legos, spaceman legos, army legos..

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  68. SOLVE it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stuff that, I'm having trouble enough reading the
    black text upon the black background.

  69. Ok, where's the 5D and 6D? by vfwlkr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heck, It was just too easy.. solved it in less than a minute.

    But I won't submit my entry into the hall of fame, otherwise the FBI will come looking for this "human computer" that can perform 10^30 trops, and exceeds export regulations :P

    --
    If you're not using firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
    ---
    1. Re:Ok, where's the 5D and 6D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually easier then a rubiks cube.

      Although it looks like a nightmare to me.

      I messed the 4d cube up and ask the computer to solve it, and it did it in half the moves that I messed it up with.

  70. 4D analogs for mathematics behind Rubik's cube? by kevinatilusa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another way of viewing the 3D Rubik's cube (for the mathematicians out there) is as a group on 6 generators, meaning that any reachable configuration could be gotten by merely repeating the same 6 operations in some order (I believe the 6 generators being rotating the two outer 3x3x1 squares 90 degrees clockwise along any of the 3 axes).

    Using this group, you could do various things like find the odds that a random arrangement of stickers is actually solvable (take the size of the group divided by the number of possible arrangements). Are there computations involving this for the 4D cube on the web anywhere?

  71. YOU ALL WORSHIP CUBELESS WORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    idiots.
    http://www.timecube.com/

  72. 2D rubik's cube? by matteo_v · · Score: 1

    So it seems you can invent a whole hierarchy of n-dimensions Rubik's puzzle... for n >= 3. But is it possible to invent a 2-dimensional version? Just for people like me who could never figure out the 3D

    --
    -- http://matteo.vaccari.name/
    1. Re:2D rubik's cube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.slidingpuzzle.com/puzzle.php

    2. Re:2D rubik's cube? by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1

      Easy. That's the classic 15-puzzle.

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
  73. I'd never seen a funny story about a rubik's cube by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    Now I have. Thanks.

  74. 1-D Rubik's Cube! by pyrote · · Score: 5, Funny

    I found this great 1-D Rubik's Cube, here, I can embed it here on this page:

    .

    The interface is simple: just look at it. Quantum mechnaics dictates that observing it changes it's state so just assume it's solved.

    Here is a magnified version:

    .

    If you still have trouble with it, my book will be coming out pretty soon.

    --
    THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    1. Re:1-D Rubik's Cube! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically a point is 0 dimensional. 1 dimensional would have been a line segment. (Although I suppose that could have been a really small line segment. :)

    2. Re:1-D Rubik's Cube! by pyrote · · Score: 1

      no you missed it, it's next to the dot...ya thats the ticket :)

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  75. It would really kick ass if..... by Craig3010 · · Score: 1

    ...the web page was easier to read.

    When I'm King, there'll be a law against web pages using a black font on a near black background.

  76. Hofstadter's the best source for rubik weirdness by aziraphale · · Score: 5, Informative

    Douglas Hofstadter wrote a couple of excellent columns on Rubik's cube and variations on the theme for his Metamagical Themas column in Scientific American back in the eighties (you can buy his collected columns in this book). In particular, he talks about the various ways you can modify the basic 3x3x3 cube concept - for example, 4x4x4 cubes, 3x3x3 tetrahedra, alternate colour schemes, and so on (along the way, investigating the spark of inspiration that encourages people to try out different variations on a theme - something he refers to elsewhere in his books as 'conceptual slippage' - this hypercube would be a 'slip' along a different axis to those hofstadter explores - I'm sure he'd appreciate it :) ). He goes into plenty of detail about the mathematical approaches you can use to solving the cube, and some intriguing analogues to subatomic physics that crop up in the maths of rubik... anybody wanting an introduction to the kinds of topics the people behind this hypercube are exploring could do worse than to read those articles.

    There's also some excellent stuff in that book on Lisp, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, Alan Turing, and nuclear war... great selection of articles by an extremely interesting mind.

  77. movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  78. There's a math problem in here somewhere by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many possible combinations of the cube are solvable (if you put the pieces together in all possible combinations?)

    Furthermore, any solvable combination will just be a permutation of any other solvable combination (i.e. you don't have to take the cube apart to create another solvable combination from one). So all these "solvable" states can be collapsed into 1.

    So then I wonder how many unique combinations there are, of which only one is solvable. The answer is left as an exercise to a reader who is much more motivated than I am.

    Hi! I've managed to take a funny story and turn it into a mind-boggling math problem.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    1. Re:There's a math problem in here somewhere by geggibus · · Score: 1

      1/6:th .. 50% to get the sides right and 33% for the corners.. so most probably if you put it together randomly, it will be unsolvable. (If you know how to solve it, it's easy to calculate.. )

    2. Re:There's a math problem in here somewhere by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

      I reckon (yes, "reckon") it might be a little more complex than that. There are 8 corners... so what if two corners are wrong? There are 9 possible combinations of any 2 corners, 1 of which is correct. There would be 3^8 combinations of all 8 corners, though many of those would be duplicates due to symmetry.

      I will meditate on this.

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    3. Re:There's a math problem in here somewhere by geggibus · · Score: 1

      If two or more corners are wrong you can turn it so only one will be wrong, same thing with the sides...

    4. Re:There's a math problem in here somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a math problem. Here follows a completely unhelpful description :

      The number of possible combinations are divided into 2 distinct disconnected sets. "Disconnected" means that you cannot get from an element from one set to the other via the "twisting" operation.

      Think of the chess board. If you start in a black square, and the only "move" you can make is to move an even number squares per turn, then you will never be able to reach a white square. The twisting operation in a cube is essentially an "even" move.

  79. I solved it... by saintan · · Score: 1

    I put 3D-Homer back together in only 27 turns...this 4D bull should be no problem!

    --
    ****--- A fortune cookie once told me the meaning of life...so I ate it. ---****
  80. Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anybody else find web pages created with low contrast type (black type on a dark grey background) so much work to read that they just don't bother? What kind of idiot creates a page that goes out of its way to be hard to read? Why not just do the page in blinking text? Morons.

  81. Rubik's Tesseract? by modulo · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be called Rubik's Tesseract?

    That is, if we can get a a licensing deal with Erno. . .

    --

    ...but the language is MUMPS, which I will not utter here

  82. This is insane!!! by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Only after a few minutes my mind is already going nuts!

    What a crazy game! :-)

  83. Been around a while... by rivendahl · · Score: 1

    I played with this back in 98 or 99 (perhaps even before). It's based on the HyperCube obviously. That being a point streched perpendicular to itself is a line, a line stretched perpedicular to itself is a 2D plane (rectangle), a rectangle stretched perpedicular to itself is a 3D plane (cube), and so on and so on. It's infinite. But I'm sure most of you already knew that. Regardless, I wonder if they made any changes since last time I played with it?

    Rivendahl

    --
    ... there is nothing that has not already been thought ...
  84. Mod parent 'Fuckwitted' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have any idea how GA's work? Do you know what a heuristic is? Because your idea about using a genetic algorithm is one of the stupidest I have ever seen on Slashdot. I look forward to your next posting!

  85. 4D Cube? by Caffeine+Pill · · Score: 1

    Give me a week and I'll have it solved by last month.

  86. Bastardly Deed for the Day by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > Now I've got the sound bite of him saying "Rubik" in that attempted-cute way stuck in my head. ARGH! Actually, kind of analagous to Pikachu saying his own name in delight and sense of accomplishment. But Rubik was worse.
    >
    > How am I supposed to go to sleep with that stuff in my head? Now I'll have to watch some porn or something...

    Time for my bastardly deed for the day:

    "Oh, Rubie! (clackclackRubik!clack) Yeah, Rubie, that's it! (Rubik!clackclack) Twist it there Rubie! Oh, Rubie, (Rubik!Rubik!) let me send you to the Fourth Dimension, Rubie! (RubikrubikrubufRUUUUUUUUUUUUBIK!!!!!!!!!)"

  87. Whooptee-Doo by sharkey · · Score: 1

    I'm not interested in 4D. Let me know when they get to 5D, so I can get my Rubik's Tesseract.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  88. Nope... by Jerf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those are only descriptions of a hypercube that is projected onto a three-dimensional space or intersected with a three-dimensional space.

    A real hypercube looks like a hypercube, not a cube with lines or anything else... of course you need to be five-dimensional to perceive the whole thing at once.

    In general you need N+1 dimensions to perceive an N-dimensional object; for example, we can only fully perceive two dimensional objects all at once. Three dimensional objects we only see a particular side of, and generally only the surface. A four-dimensional being could potentially see the entire three dimensional object all at once, just as we perceive two-dimensional objects all at once. A two-dimensional being only sees one dimension around him, and can only see a certain side of, say, a square.

    Note that there's nothing magical about any of this, or particularly unbelievable; if you're having trouble believing it's this simple your mind has been corrupted by bad sci-fi, probably Star Trek.

  89. Douglas Li Needed a Challenge by spoonboy42 · · Score: 1

    I actually know one of the people on the hall of fame, a young man named Douglas Li. A couple of months after he completed his solution, he and I competed together on Michigan's all-star high school math team for ARML (American Regions Math League). He's quite good with mathematics in general, and both he and I scored about par for the course in the individual portion of the competition.

    What I'll never forget, though, is that on the bus ride from Michigan to Iowa, he would take particular challenges on his Rubik's cube. Before the trip, he disassembled and oiled his cube so that he could make moves more quickly. He could solve any 3x3x3 in under 30 seconds by examining all faces of the cube, then pretty much spinning it on autopilot. He took a little longer for a 5x5x5. A rubik's dodecahedron actually gave him a run for his money, but after about 45 minutes of puzzling, he got it.

    The most interesting thing he accomplished, though, was creating an image of a rose, with stem, on one of the faces of a 5x5x5. We suggested that he use it to ask a girl to prom. No word yet on whether he did, but if so, that's surely worthy of the hall of fame, don't you think?

    --
    Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
    Andy Grove: "Not Much."
  90. A 3D function is not a 4D object by dara · · Score: 1

    Your room temperature example illustrates a 3D function quite well, but I'm not sure it helps anyone's conception of a 4D object. A 2D function is a surface (e.g. a sail), which is not the same thing as a 3D object (e.g. a solid cube).

    Since this is a discrete example, probably the easiest visualization is a spreadsheet. A simple 3x3x3x3 discrete cubic object is just 81 rows with the 4 columns ranging from -1 to 1. If you added a 5th column without increasing the number of rows, you would have a 4D function.

    I'm not sure how this representation is matched to the Rubik's cube example. The first thing is that the row with all 0s is not used as it is not on the 4D surface. Then I guess you could have an ID that represents the state of the surface point. Depending on whether the point is on the center of the face (3 0s), an edge (2 0s), a corner (1 0s), or a 'hypercorner' (no 0s), the ID would represent the set of colors and orientation of the piece. Finally you need a way to describe the effect of all possible moves on the spreadsheet.

  91. Bookmark to make the page easier to read... by orn · · Score: 1

    Try the following bit of code...

    If you copy and paste that into a bookmark, that book mark will have the function of removing all colors from a page. Any page.

    The 4D cube page has TERRIBLE coloration. This helps.

    Rudy


    javascript:(function(){var newSS, styles='* { background: white ! important; color: black !important } :link, :link * { color: #0000EE !important } :visited, :visited * { color: #551A8B !important }'; if(document.createStyleSheet) { document.createStyleSheet("javascript:'"+styles+"' "); } else { newSS=document.createElement('link'); newSS.rel='stylesheet'; newSS.href='data:text/css,'+escape(styles); document.documentElement.childNodes[0].appendChild (newSS); } })();


    --
    1. 2.
  92. Oh my eyes! by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The colours, the horrible colours!

    Blue links and black test on a dark grey background. What was this guy thinking?

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  93. That's nice but... by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

    How am I supposed to rearrange the stickers now?

  94. I'll go you one better... by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
    ... I picked up one on the desk of a guy that was interviewing me for a job. While I worked it, it was mostly below his sightline because of all the other crap on his desk. Three minutes later I set it back where he can see it, solved. Impressed him, but didn't get the job. :(

    --

    (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    1. Re:I'll go you one better... by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      Maybe because you spent your time messing around rather than listening to him. :)

  95. Metamagical Themas by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 1

    I second this comment on Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas column (although I'm more a fan of his colleague Egbert B. Gebstadter's row called Thetamagical Memas)

    I remember a disappointed follow up by Hofstadter written (I believe) as one of the Post Scripta that follow the reprints of the columns in the book, that the world in general didn't follow down the primrose path to further cube-notion slipping: he laments that many cubes have been melted down for their plastic, etc, and comments (in 1985, when the reprints came out) that humans have made themselves "collectively sick of the cube."

    Hofstadter is always worth checking out if you've never heard of him, but you need to look at about either exactly one or any three different titles by him to begin to understand the breadth and depth of what motivates him. And he just so happens to be a kind and generous guy in person too, if you've ever met him.

  96. Rubik's Cube by slicerace · · Score: 1

    It took me long enough to learn how to do the original in under a minute... now I have to learn this?

    SlicerAce Solving Rubik's Cube in 34 seconds

  97. They can make a 4D cube but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they can't figure out how to set the mime type for tgz files to binary.

  98. Re:Hofstadter's the best source for rubik weirdnes by hankaholic · · Score: 1

    Hofstadter is definitely an amazing author. I'm about 200 pages into "Godel, Escher, Bach -- an Eternal Golden Braid", and it's hands down the best book I've ever written. It won a Pulitzer, IIRC.

    It's rare that someone has such a grasp of both conteptual material and language as to be able to explain concepts such as addressed in GEB, and to relate them to each other. Hofstadter addresses the concept of "Strange Loops" (self-referential structures), using Bach and Escher to explain the importance of Godel's work (and using Godel and Bach to explain Escher's art, and using Escher and Godel to describe Bach's music).

    This book uses self-reference to explain the self-referential works of all three minds, all in a way which manages to be both astoundingly lucid and refreshingly amusing for a 700-page text addressing such complex topics.

    I feel that this book will be as good (or better) of a read the second time through -- of course, the second time through I'll be taking more notes, and looking for more puzzles as well as a deeper understanding of the meaning of the text. Much like a work by Escher, Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" has surprises for the attentive observer on many levels.

    --
    Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
  99. Fourth Demension? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    I'm so tired of the physics-illiterati mangling the fourth demension (time).

    For those just tuning in, the universe is 4-dimensional. Every possible location in the universe can be described using 4 dimensions; the 3 with which you are familiar, and time. You are where you are at this particular time. Therefore, your location is 4-dimensional. Change any one of those ordinates, and it's a different place in space-time, which is how we currently understand the universe.

    There are 4D rides at Universal Studios here in Florida. Yeah, right. They manipulate time, or can control your passage through it. Now this Rubik's cube takes the 4th dimension into account? How? How must time be manipulated so that it affects the outcome of the challenge? Just going forward in time as usual is not a manipulation. /pet peeve

    1. Re:Fourth Demension? by BonrHanzon · · Score: 1

      Look, time is just another dimension. There are more than three spatial dimensions, and don't tell me there aren't just because your brain can't picture it. Yes, we live in a 3-D universe but that doesn't mean that there aren't other spatial dimensions out there.

    2. Re:Fourth Demension? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      Well, of course I believe that the superstring theory, or string theory for short, is the most promising of all theories so far, as it is a "grand unifying theory." But that would be getting off-topic, now... ;)

  100. What about Nintendo? by joggle · · Score: 1

    I remember in the old NES days everyone would say "I have a Nintendo" NOT "I have a Nintendo entertainment system". The reason for this was obvious -- the Nintendo corporation didn't sell anything else in the US (or not anything that kids knew about) and they had their name emblazened on the box. It seems this should apply to Lego as well since, as far as I know, they don't make anything other than plastic pieces which plug together (and now the Mindstorm computers). So if one says "I have some Legos", it's obvious they are refering to Lego blocks.

  101. bah. by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    you call that challenging? Wait until the command-line version of the game comes out! :)

  102. OSX Compile Tips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have any tips on how to compile this to run in X11 on Darwin? Sometimes it seems as though troubleshooting compilation issues is an even greater puzzle than solving this 4th dimension stuff.

  103. and the award for most mis-directed anger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... goes to Mr. Coward for his/her rant concerning the plural form of "lego." an excerpt of his/her acceptance speech:

    "... I'd like to thank my parent, my teacher, or I'd especially like to thank my fan, without whom this would not be possible."

    - a.c.

  104. Mod up, informative by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    like i said

  105. It's a DIY for their convenience by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1

    It's a DIY because they sell blank black cubes and have all sorts of sticker sets, like flags, coloured happy faces, and whatever. That way they don't have to deal with manufacturing each model, stocking inventory for each, end-of-line sales for unpopular ones... they just pack in the sticker set.

  106. Cube lube by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1

    Rubik's sells cube lube. "If the only lube you've ever purchased is cube lube, you might be a geek."

  107. Could be... by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
    ... that he thought I wasn't paying attention, I don't much go for eye contact. But doing a cube doesn't take a third of my attention these days. Unless I do a wrong turn and end up with some subcubes where I didn't expect them. That grabs all my attention while I figure out what went wrong. Otherwise solving the cube is largely a mindless activity.

    --

    (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.