Slashdot Mirror
A Working 5D Rubik's Cube
Melinda Green writes "Readers who enjoyed the previous
Slashdot postings regarding the 4-dimensional Rubik's cube called MagicCube4D will
be interested to know that a couple of brilliant developers have
recently created a working 5-dimensional Rubik's
cube. Operating a 5 dimensional puzzle projected all the way down
to a 2D computer screen may seem a hopeless task but the full 5D puzzle
has already been solved
by 3 people. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 4D puzzle has now
been ported to Java and is available as both a full-featured desktop
application and as an Applet."
n/t
...it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.
after seeing the picture on the front page.. Given that i probably will be dead within the next 100 years i doubt i'll have time to finish it anyways, it's just to many dimensions..
Anyone know where you can buy a real 5D cube? I hate trying to solve them on a computer screen. Much easier in real life.
Also I will need a spare set of 4 dimensional stickers in case the original ones fall off.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
...peel off the stickers in 5 dimensions?
I remember having recieved a rubic cube as a gift many years back. It took up a lot of my time in solving the cube. Heck the cube was so popular that there were entire books written detailing how to solve the cube. And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes. Now a five dimentional rubic cube (albeit a software one) - that could be a real challenge even for rubic cube champions themselves. Too bad the software require microsoft dot net framework to run.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
I think because we don't live in the matrix, rhat a real 5 dimensional cube sounds impossible...
If you can't run Java applets, and 30 meg downloads are a severe burden upon you, then your computer is crippled and you should talk to your hardware vendor about shipping you ASAP a modern computer.
And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes.
o n.html
Using a few simple, easy-to-learn algorithms, and with a few weeks practice it is possible for pretty much anyone to solve the 3D cube in just 2 or 3 minutes. Using a layer-by-layer method you can solve each piece one at a time in the first two layers, then learn 4 algorithms to fix the last layer (not necessarily in this order):
1) Rotate edges
2) Rotate corners
3) Permute corners
4) Permute edges
Sometimes you will have to use an algorithm twice. Each algorithm takes about 10 moves, and at a slow speed of one move per second and a bit of luck you can solve the last layer in under a minute. Here's a beginner's guide:
http://peter.stillhq.com/jasmine/rubikscubesoluti
If you want to get faster you need to learn more algorithms so that you can complete two steps at once.
A popular method which can be used to get very fast times is the Fridrich method, but it requires a lot of memorisation and lots and lots of practice:
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html
Personally I managed to get times of under 1 minute by practising the cube every day in the bus to and from work.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd!!!!
... And don't get me started on the five diementional one...
Damn... And I thought I was hopelessly nerdy.
I must look positively herculean next to these guys.
I remember spending the better part of an afternoon last summer trying to solve my girlfriend's father's 20 year old rubiks cube.
I was really close to solving it when it litterally fell apart in my hands. Turns out one of the (now grown up) kids had once tried to forcibly solve it with a screwdriver. Now, whenever you it get into a certain configuration (ie: a near-finished state) it loses all structural integrity.
I could have cried... I WAS SO CLOSE!!!
I was crazy to spend so long on a three diementional rubik's cube.
But, I don't know which is crazier... That someone made a four diementional version, or that people have already solved it.
If I remember my 4th grade physics correctly, the 5th dimension is a tesseract. I fully intend to use this "cube" to teleport around the universe!!! muhahahhhahaa
That 4d java applet is amazing! It even runs perfectly fast on my Pentium II.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
A 5 dimensional Rubik's cube? Yeah... this sounds just a plausable as the www.timecube.com web site.
Is there anyone reading with the brains/training to confidently/accurately answer some questions please?
"These are Rubik's cubes of the form 3d, with the original popular puzzle being 33. We label the puzzles like this because they are a d-dimensional cube broken into 3d smaller pieces or "cubies" of the same dimension. For example, the 3D cube has 33 or 27 total 3-dimensional cubies."
Does adding cubies really mean adding a dimension, or does it mean simply making a more complicated 3D puzzle and giving it a fancy name? (Behold: the Fifth Dimension! Amaze Your Friends!)
I noticed in the 4D model that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that? What do the green cubes represent? Where are the pieces which disappear supposed to be going, and why can't we see the changes being made to this set of cubies? Is the invisible set a cheat on the part of the designers?
I have not played with the 5D version, and so have no questions about that one.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
The title is misleading, it the cube isn't written in ruby.
If the three dimensions are length, width, heighth, and the fourth is time -- how do you accurately depict that? What is the 5th dimension? How can these be anything more than an extended 3D object? I know someone out there knows what's going on, please fill me in?
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
If you exist in one dimension, is the 2nd dimension neccessarilry width, or is it height? There are many other choices, but we tend to pick time because it is easily understood by us.
..........FULL STOP.
You mean like all those lovely linux apps which work with no dependencies?
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Too bad it requires Windows XP. Even with .NET installed, it's complaining about a missing symbol in kernel32.dll under 2K. :|
Just wait until GCC makes a native .NET port that compiles them to standalone executables. Mono exists, but I don't know if that compiles to native assembly or MSIL.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
the applet uses both left, right, and control clicks, which means people browsing the web via mac get the shaft too
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Microsoft builts its software with Win32...they do not want to use layers upon layers of object and class hierrararchies, because their apps will be slow as hell...especially MSWord that's already slow in Win32.
Both of these guys who wrote this are my co-workers at my day job. They're both really brilliant guys. IIRC Roice has actually solved a 3D cube behind his back before...
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!
Oh my god, you're right! It does look like he wrote this application in .NET solely for the purpose of being a huge burden on everyone! After thinking about it, I guess it really does have nothing to do with .NET probably being the language he's most familiar with. I'm sure that he probably did want to spend several months learning a new language for something that could best be described as an amusing diversion, but chose not to because he wanted to waste the few minutes it would take you to download and install .NET. Come to think of it, I'm sure the fact that most people already have .NET installed probably just makes him mad, because it mitigates the toll his application will take on society.
The fact that it's kind of cool is only a ruse in his more diabolical agenda of making your life miserable for five or so minutes. The fact that we are compelled to install it by means I don't quite understand yet only makes the situation worse. If only we had a choice whether or not we wanted to play with a 5-dimensional Rubik's Cube!
Personally, I think that if you're as outraged as I am, since you're obviously so much smarter then me, you should rewrite his application in a morally superior language. The kink in this fool's plan is that he seems to have forgotten to patent the application (but be careful, it could be another trick!), which leaves the door open for anyone to simply rewrite it!
Please start working on it right away, as this outrage must not go unanswered!
Why must people always strive to make things more complicated. I say someone should design and implement a 2D Rubik Cube. Personally, I'd find that far more fun.
The 4D cube's solve command is missing in the java version. I used to use the linux version, which could show you the steps needed to solve the puzzle.
So I guess it really IS the dawning of the age of aquarius!
What I'd like to know is how would a 2D version of the Rubik "cube" look like. A square with each side made up of three different segments, and each segment swaps with the opposite one? Somehow that doesn't seem right...
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
OK I understand that the 3D cubes are actually 4D (i.e. they exist for a period of time)
but 5D?
they emit antigravity?
There is no cube.
When you realise this, you will see that it is not the cube that gets solved. It is only yourself.
Is on slashdot trying to *learn* cool things about tech and its many uses - trolling uber733t *nix snobs like you is just a fringe benefit!
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
This 5D cube is *so* dated.
:]
I'm waiting for the 6D version
I think the solve option is very good, its just mind blowing, would be nice to see this as a screen saver :D
I have one of only five (so I was told) ever made, real, 3-dimensional, physical, 5x5x5 Rubic's cube.
The original is 3x3x3. For a while you could buy a 4x4x4. For people who learned to solve the 3x3x3 (see other postings this thread) the 4x4x4 was only a "little bit harder." However, last time I heard, no human was "even close to solving" the 5x5x5.
This staggeringly complex device was invented by a brilliant guy named Scott Matthews, who lives in Yelm, WA.
I would like to suggest to the nerdy multi-dimensional java and .net guys: Make a computerized version of the 3D 5x5x5, and see how people respond to that.
In case anybody cares.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
5DStuff.COM
Anyway - it is actually an interesting piece of work. The original cube itself is also very nice. One must recognize that even the original cube does actually contain more than one solution. If you replace the stickers on an original cube with 6 different images then you will reduce the number of solutions to one single. The catch is that the center piece can on an original cube have four different positions that all are correct. This means that the original cube in theory actually has 4096 different solutions.
One variation on the 3D cube that I have been considering is actually doing a 5x5x5 cube instead. It is a mechanical challenge since it requires better precision to avoid falling apart.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You can get 5x5x5s in lots of toy stores. It's also quite solvable; my friend can do it.
Who, out of those of you that have it, are willing to start a torrent for the rest of us?
I don't want to install .NET or whatever it is supposed to be. This application is pretty useless. You obviously want to get as many competitors and challengers as possible. Darn you, Rubik!
His real motive is to DDoS Microsoft Download Center.
What they neglect to tell you is that if you solve this puzzle, you get to meet and be a permanent guest of Pinhead and his fellow Cenobites.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Kltpzyxm!
The fourth dimension is time isn't it? Or is this six dimensional?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
A lot of people are asking if the fourth dimension isn't time, since when speaking of space-time, we think of three dimensions moving through some higher level which we have been told is time. Actually... this is not so. I used to think this way as well.
Instead, follow this logic:
Working backward from three dimensions, you have a cube (x^3), then a square (x^2), then a line (x^1)... then a dot (x^0). The dot? It exists or it doesn't exist. Scroll back and forth through time, and you find out when and where the dot exists. Because time dictates the occurrence of the most minimal expression of existence, time must be the fundamental dimension or property of dimensionality. Call time the zeroth dimension if you must; or rather, call it one of the fundamental properties of existence, like velocity or entropy.
In order for existing things to interact, time must occur. Time is generated by the interaction of things which exist. If something exists, no matter its dimensionality, it exists in time the instant it is related to change, or information about change (such as when the thing has velocity, which dictates a change in location; or in a system of multiple things, which dictates relative positions and velocities and field effects which all interact and cause change over time).
Because a system tends to maximise its entropy, time occurs when a system is defined which has not yet reached maximum entropy, and for all intents and purposes ceases to occur when entropy is maximised (because at that point, change holds no information - you can't get less random, because the entire system is in its lowest energy state and cannot be further translated or reduced).
It was inevitable somebody would start quoting timecube.
Solving it makes you invisible to girls. I think you also become the master of time, but haven't been able to confirm it yesterday. BTW - solving the 4D version gets you beat up by jocks. Very hard level to get past.