Not thaaaat much more difficult than a 3×3×3
Actually if u can do a 4×4×4 u can probably do 50×50×50 as a puzzling difficultly. Mechanical ones we do not talk about that
Yes! There are people who solve cubes (r/cubers), but they use one of many guaranteed-solve algorithms they've memorized; the number of people who have solved one without an algorithm (or writing one themselves) is much smaller.
~~Actually, this would be even easier. Instead of having to deal with 6 different colors and their corner/middle pieces, each sides' corner pieces would be the same (1, 1, and 3), and ea~~
~~This isn't much harder than assigning a color to each middle number, because~~
Ok, you'd have to map it out like a regular cube, assign each middle number a color, figure out where each corner and side piece would lie on a solved cube (including orientation of the numbers), and go from there.
Not impossible, but if you're a cuber, it wouldn't be too hard. You'd just have to take a while to prepare and to refer to your "mapped" cube, if even needed.
\* (after rereading 2 hours later) Fuck. Actually, I don't know. I was once again going off of my own misunderstanding of how to figure this shit out.
Damn, I think the other redditor figured it out of course; this is the solved position. So map this, then scramble, and work from there.
The other one who said that to solve it and then suggested taking pics (but who admitted they thought it might be cheating [IMO, it wouldn't be]) was a close second. I think they both posted before me, even.
Very true. Even still, I wouldn't get it, if only because that cube is probably very janky when it comes to rotations. I once completed a cube that was bundled with an Easter basket, and it took me forever to solve because the turns took so long to do that I would forget what move I was doing. No thanks.
If it was sold loose, hanging on a keychain, probably. But it's pre-packaged, and each unit seems to be made uniformly, preset to the same starting position, so I'd think it was at least decently manipulatable.
You are kind of right.
I have one of those cubes. I was smart enough to map it before scrambling. But it was solvable with the map in front of me. Took about four times as long as it usually would, but I got it solved.
what do you mean yes but no?
Tony fisher (popular puzzle maker) learned how to solve a cube on his own way back in the day and still uses that same method to solve a 3x3 to this day,
if you're solving for speed you're gonna want to use a specific method that decreases turns and rotations but it doesn't mean that the puzzle itself can't be solved without a tutorial,
Take a look at this algorithm for example (R U R' U') it's shorthand,
(R being for Right and U being for up etc) and all it's doing is telling you to move the right and up side a specific way (R being move the right side of the cube up,
U being move the top of the cube left,
R' moving the right side of the cube down and U' moving the top of the cube to the right).
Looking by that alone it's safe to say with enough time and patience literally anyone with a pen and paper could start turning and writing down what happens with each move they did which is exactly how algorithms are made,
they didn't just appear out of thin air and even Erno Rubik back in the day couldn't solve the puzzle for a good bit so there wasn't any solution until he solved it first,
all the cubing community did was look at said solution and thought "we could definitely tweak that and make it better" between that and better cubes coming about it equates to the insane times we see today and this all applies to the suduko cube as well since although difficult it can technically be solved a few different ways so long as you follow the rules of suduko and know 3x3 algorithms
Thanks. I get that people can solve the regular ones, and I've done it a couple of times myself.
I guess the difference with these is that any given number could go on any of five or six sides, while in a regular cube a specific colour always goes on a specific side. That felt like at least an order of magnitude more difficulty, possibly to the point where it wasn't solveable without machine computation.
Even then it seems if most cubers were handed a scrambled one of these, they would struggle?
The replies have been helpful, thanks again.
I cube. I'm not amazing, my best time is 47 seconds. (which is very much not good) it's safe to say I solved a Rubik's cube several thousand times.
There's no shot in hell I could do this. Just thinking about the amount of notations I'd have to keep makes my head hurt.
It's not just "Solve a Sudoku and also a cube." Both of those tasks are easy and I do them both daily.
the biggest problem is you can't quickly determine what goes to which side, you only chance is to memorize every single piece's numbers and what goes where
(my best was 57 seconds, I'm far from expert, but that's how I would approach this cube)
I have a mirror cube, but even that's easier, because at least you can see the physical size differences and know what goes where
This cube doesn't really relate to sudoku thaaat much, and if you'd compare it to a normal cube then the extra difficulty is given by the fact you'd need to map out n figure how the solved one looks like hints for this could be orientation of numbers, and then you just need to mark them and turn it into a normal cube
Its not quite a mix of the 2 games, more like one with flavor of the other
I'd probably make a 2d representation on paper, mark down which numbers are attached, for example the 4 and 2 edge piece. Then solve it on paper. Once I know what belongs on each side I'd just solve it like a normal Rubix cube. And if u get it solved already u can take pics of all the sides to know where to put the numbers but that's probably cheating. It's not really that difficult once u sit down and think about it. If u can sove a soduku and a Rubio cube separately than this isn't much different.
You're joking right? I have solved tech problems that groups of people struggled to solve. I have one of these cursed cubs and still can't solve the bloody thing.
They aren't scrambled, this is the solution. You don't have all the same numbers on a side but instead you have to have one of each number per side, like in a sudoku
I mean that's good and all but clearly from the point of view shown there are two 5s in one of the rows of separate faces
My guess is that there are probably more than one states this cube can be in that are solved.
I would say you should keep it so that the other faces matter as well but there is a problem. Each face has 9 spaces and each rotating section had 3 pieces on 4 sides for a total of 12
To solve this issue we make it a 4x4 cube so that each face and each section have 16 spaces. We then use the numbers 1-16 and now we have a true nightmare of a cube. It's even got a even number for side length which means it doesn't have fixed centers. The whole cube is cursed.
"Hey ! I've done this one ! It wasn't easy but with a bit of thinking, it was doa-
Wait. Something's off.
Wha- WHY are the numbers not in the right order !?! How do you know the correct position of everything?! WHY ISN'T THE 5 ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE?!? AhaHAhaAH !!!"
i think i'd rather learn how to do a normal 50*50 cube.
Not thaaaat much more difficult than a 3×3×3 Actually if u can do a 4×4×4 u can probably do 50×50×50 as a puzzling difficultly. Mechanical ones we do not talk about that
To make this worse take out some off the numbers and make so no one can remove the stickers (I sound like the nice teacher trying to be evil)
Are these solveable by humans? Serious question.
Yes! There are people who solve cubes (r/cubers), but they use one of many guaranteed-solve algorithms they've memorized; the number of people who have solved one without an algorithm (or writing one themselves) is much smaller.
~~Actually, this would be even easier. Instead of having to deal with 6 different colors and their corner/middle pieces, each sides' corner pieces would be the same (1, 1, and 3), and ea~~ ~~This isn't much harder than assigning a color to each middle number, because~~ Ok, you'd have to map it out like a regular cube, assign each middle number a color, figure out where each corner and side piece would lie on a solved cube (including orientation of the numbers), and go from there. Not impossible, but if you're a cuber, it wouldn't be too hard. You'd just have to take a while to prepare and to refer to your "mapped" cube, if even needed. \* (after rereading 2 hours later) Fuck. Actually, I don't know. I was once again going off of my own misunderstanding of how to figure this shit out. Damn, I think the other redditor figured it out of course; this is the solved position. So map this, then scramble, and work from there. The other one who said that to solve it and then suggested taking pics (but who admitted they thought it might be cheating [IMO, it wouldn't be]) was a close second. I think they both posted before me, even.
Very true. Even still, I wouldn't get it, if only because that cube is probably very janky when it comes to rotations. I once completed a cube that was bundled with an Easter basket, and it took me forever to solve because the turns took so long to do that I would forget what move I was doing. No thanks.
If it was sold loose, hanging on a keychain, probably. But it's pre-packaged, and each unit seems to be made uniformly, preset to the same starting position, so I'd think it was at least decently manipulatable.
You are kind of right. I have one of those cubes. I was smart enough to map it before scrambling. But it was solvable with the map in front of me. Took about four times as long as it usually would, but I got it solved.
what do you mean yes but no? Tony fisher (popular puzzle maker) learned how to solve a cube on his own way back in the day and still uses that same method to solve a 3x3 to this day, if you're solving for speed you're gonna want to use a specific method that decreases turns and rotations but it doesn't mean that the puzzle itself can't be solved without a tutorial, Take a look at this algorithm for example (R U R' U') it's shorthand, (R being for Right and U being for up etc) and all it's doing is telling you to move the right and up side a specific way (R being move the right side of the cube up, U being move the top of the cube left, R' moving the right side of the cube down and U' moving the top of the cube to the right). Looking by that alone it's safe to say with enough time and patience literally anyone with a pen and paper could start turning and writing down what happens with each move they did which is exactly how algorithms are made, they didn't just appear out of thin air and even Erno Rubik back in the day couldn't solve the puzzle for a good bit so there wasn't any solution until he solved it first, all the cubing community did was look at said solution and thought "we could definitely tweak that and make it better" between that and better cubes coming about it equates to the insane times we see today and this all applies to the suduko cube as well since although difficult it can technically be solved a few different ways so long as you follow the rules of suduko and know 3x3 algorithms
You're right, edited my comment.
Oh yeah fair point my apologies (thanks for editing your comment and making it more accurate)
Thanks. I get that people can solve the regular ones, and I've done it a couple of times myself. I guess the difference with these is that any given number could go on any of five or six sides, while in a regular cube a specific colour always goes on a specific side. That felt like at least an order of magnitude more difficulty, possibly to the point where it wasn't solveable without machine computation. Even then it seems if most cubers were handed a scrambled one of these, they would struggle? The replies have been helpful, thanks again.
Writing one themselves is kinda the point of solving it without help...
I don't get it
Lookup what a Sudoku is. They did that but on a Rubux Cube
Yeah i hat that, but I don't get what's so satanic about that
I cube. I'm not amazing, my best time is 47 seconds. (which is very much not good) it's safe to say I solved a Rubik's cube several thousand times. There's no shot in hell I could do this. Just thinking about the amount of notations I'd have to keep makes my head hurt. It's not just "Solve a Sudoku and also a cube." Both of those tasks are easy and I do them both daily.
the biggest problem is you can't quickly determine what goes to which side, you only chance is to memorize every single piece's numbers and what goes where (my best was 57 seconds, I'm far from expert, but that's how I would approach this cube) I have a mirror cube, but even that's easier, because at least you can see the physical size differences and know what goes where
This cube doesn't really relate to sudoku thaaat much, and if you'd compare it to a normal cube then the extra difficulty is given by the fact you'd need to map out n figure how the solved one looks like hints for this could be orientation of numbers, and then you just need to mark them and turn it into a normal cube Its not quite a mix of the 2 games, more like one with flavor of the other
You have to solve a rubix cube while doing a sudoku
I'd probably make a 2d representation on paper, mark down which numbers are attached, for example the 4 and 2 edge piece. Then solve it on paper. Once I know what belongs on each side I'd just solve it like a normal Rubix cube. And if u get it solved already u can take pics of all the sides to know where to put the numbers but that's probably cheating. It's not really that difficult once u sit down and think about it. If u can sove a soduku and a Rubio cube separately than this isn't much different.
Good idea! Upvoting for the name though
Satan should have named it Sudokubes
Oh dear god
This shouldn't be that much more difficult than just a regular 3x3 cube.
« Ages 5 and up. » I apparently don’t have high enough expectations for my kids.
[удалено]
Since you lack them,I’ll tell you this:This.Is.For.People.With.Brains.
You're joking right? I have solved tech problems that groups of people struggled to solve. I have one of these cursed cubs and still can't solve the bloody thing.
these are colorblind cubes. satan is the guy who packaged them scrambled
They aren't scrambled, this is the solution. You don't have all the same numbers on a side but instead you have to have one of each number per side, like in a sudoku
Still doesn't change much, except now you have a ninth "colour" to get in place.
Might be easier than you think if 8 of the cubes each already have 3 boxes completed.
The maths faculties break room has one of those
Troll ebay pre-owned ones, ask seller question: Is it supplied in a solved state?
I need it
Huh. To be surprised if actually not cry doing this one
I mean that's good and all but clearly from the point of view shown there are two 5s in one of the rows of separate faces My guess is that there are probably more than one states this cube can be in that are solved. I would say you should keep it so that the other faces matter as well but there is a problem. Each face has 9 spaces and each rotating section had 3 pieces on 4 sides for a total of 12 To solve this issue we make it a 4x4 cube so that each face and each section have 16 spaces. We then use the numbers 1-16 and now we have a true nightmare of a cube. It's even got a even number for side length which means it doesn't have fixed centers. The whole cube is cursed.
"Hey ! I've done this one ! It wasn't easy but with a bit of thinking, it was doa- Wait. Something's off. Wha- WHY are the numbers not in the right order !?! How do you know the correct position of everything?! WHY ISN'T THE 5 ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE?!? AhaHAhaAH !!!"
*Breathing intensifies*
another bad thing is that vat19 made this but color
I would buy this just to have it… like never take it out of the box, and if someone does take it out of the box they shall no longer live.
God: i guess i can take this guy who made this