Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do you rubiks?

  1. Dec 7, 2007 #1
    I'm wondering how many PFers like solving rubiks cubes (or tearing them to shreds in frustration)

    I'm asking for some replacement stickers for Christmas, the ones that come with it begin to peel after a week of heavy use
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 7, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em. :grumpy:

    It takes me half an hour using the manual. Can't you just paint yours with enamel? It should last longer than new decals.
  4. Dec 7, 2007 #3
    everybody is really slow using the manual at first, eventually it just becomes instinct (scary, eh?)
  5. Dec 7, 2007 #4
    Here! I do, I totally tear them to shreds in frustration. Or at least I did one of them, when they first came out. And by tearing them to shreds in frustration I mean peeling off every bloody sticker from every blasted square, then sticking the bastards back where they should be, then throwing the freaking cube to the bottom of the deepest drawer never to see daylight again. It must have completely decayed by now because I can't find it.

    So to answer the question, no.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2007
  6. Dec 7, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do people still do those? When I was a kid and they first came out, you could just pop all the pieces apart and reassemble it in the right order. That was the only way I could solve it until I got the manual, then realized it was really a quick thing to solve once you learned a few patterns to look for.

    Then someone got me one of the ones with 4 squares to a side. I was able to solve the Rubik's Links puzzle (looked like links on a chain). But, I think that was less complicated than the cubes.
  7. Dec 7, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well... I've had mine for more than 25 years, and I ain't feeling no instinct.
  8. Dec 7, 2007 #7
    Maybe thats just me personally because when I first got it, after I figured it out I did it almost every waking moment of spare time:redface:
  9. Dec 7, 2007 #8
    Yeah its making a small comeback, and they've released a new 'rubik's revolution' where there is not turning and the center piece lights up and all you have to do is find the one thats lit up and press on it. talk about a sell out eh?
  10. Dec 7, 2007 #9
    There's a manual???:surprised bah when I was a kid you didn't get no stinkin manual. And you have to solve it hanging upside down adn blind folded. You had to do it through sheer force of will and persistence.

    I never did figure out how to completely solve the cube but I had the links down cold. I could go from linked to unlinked in like 20-30 seconds when I was a kid (I had a lot more energy and free time back then).
  11. Dec 7, 2007 #10
    For those of you who dont know how and are interested in learning how, the site cubefreak.net is really helpful and is made by the 5 time world record holder
  12. Dec 7, 2007 #11
    "This site will not display properly in Internet Explorer."

    He-he-he, I like that! :biggrin:
  13. Dec 7, 2007 #12
    I guess it works in firefox only
  14. Dec 7, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I've never had a rubik's cube, or even had a go of one; well not that I can remember anyway. I saw one guy complete a 5*5 cube in around 10-15 mins: he was a pure mathematician though!
  15. Dec 7, 2007 #14
    Naw, it's just the layout that is a bit off with IE because this browser does not implement CSS correctly. There is of course a standard for this aimed at making sure that all web sites are properly rendered by all compliant browsers. But the Evil Empire exists in a sphere beyond such pedestrian considerations so they don't try to abide by the rules. This forces webmasters either to jump through hoops and implement hacks to make their sites look as it should, or dumb down the features and/or layout until it works well everywhere. So now it's fun to see someone who decided not to play ball and just state that the site doesn't display right under IE. Live with it or switch browser.
  16. Dec 7, 2007 #15

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Interesting theory with serious applications

    It was quickly appreciated by group theorists that these ingenious puzzles afford many opportunities for motivating such important concepts as conjugacy, cosets, stabilizer subgroups, and wreath products. Numerous distinguished mathematicians including J. H. Conway have contributed to the theory of such permutation puzzles. (An earlier puzzle, the 15 puzzle, is another classic.) Rubik's cube is discussed as an important example in one of my favorite textbooks, Neumann et al., Groups and Geometry, Oxford University Press, 1994 (see the last chapter).

    For an excellent overview of the basic theory, see these blog entries from John Armstrong:

    I myself have often pointed out a close connection with information theory.

    See Brian Hayes, "Sorting out the genome", American Scientist Sept-Oct 2007, 386-391, for discussion of some further examples of permutation puzzles (flipping and reordering a stack of pancakes using a griddle) plus important applications in genomics.

    I don't want to give it away, but if you can find the Brian Hayes article, one of the references is highly amusing in the context of a favorite activity among those who use Another Operating System, namely bashing Microsoft products :wink:

    Here is another virtual cube from rubiks.com (Seven Towns, Ltd., London), which works fine for me if I enable that site to have my browser execute a javascript.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2007
  17. Dec 7, 2007 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can do rubik cubes twice on tuesdays*

    *bastardization of 'any day of the week and twice on tuesdays' written for brevity and cool sounding alliteration. I'm trying to get everyone to use it
  18. Dec 7, 2007 #17
    I'm with the tear them to shreds team.

    I bought one a few months ago after I saw this guy on tv solve it in like a minute behind his back. it's a cheap knock-off that I bought for a dollar. they had a basket filled with them at the dollar store. it always gets stuck and stuff.

    I spent like 40 minutes on the thing and couldn't finish it! I could get the first two layers ok, but couldn't figure out any pattern for doing the last layer without screwing up the first two I completed. every time I tried to solve a square for the last layer, a layer from the first two would get scrambled up!

    eventually I got angry at it and threw it out my door. it was the single most horrible and humiliating experience of my life and I wish to never go through it again.

    there it is now... sitting on my desk as I type... taunting me... laughing at me...


    the thing is probably made in china and will give me lead poisoning.
  19. Dec 7, 2007 #18
    I first figured out the cube back in 1980. I bought it on Monday and had it figured out by Friday even though I was high as a kite the whole time. What I can't figure out is how to read those stupid manuals, simply doing it is a lot easier. It takes me around 3 minutes.

    I have the Homer Simpson one, it's the same as the simple 2x2 but confuses people because of the shape.
    http://www.bigboystoyz.com/affiliate_images/mo_simpsons_rubiks_cube.jpg [Broken] pocketcube.gif [/URL]
    I have the Rubik's Revenge (4x4), takes me around 15 minutes. Took me a day the first time.
    The Professor (5x5) takes me around 30 minutes. It took me only 1 1/2 hours the first time.
    Doing the 3x3 & 4x4 gives you the insight on how to solve it.
    It's still my favorite though. I even used this picture as my avatar for a couple years.
    http://images.funagain.com/cover/small/18058.jpg [Broken]
    Square One around 15 min.
    http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/geohelm/myweb/images/square1.jpg [Broken]
    I've had this round one for 20 years and I don't think it's all that hard, I never timed myself on it but I would say around 15 min.
    I also have the link the rings with 3 rings and the one with 5 rings, and I even have the one you fold into a cube.
    Took me a long time to figure these out the first time, but now they're easy.
    [PLAIN]http://www.zwahlendesign.ch/images/documentation/rubiks_magic_puzzle8_solved.jpg[ATTACH=full]196365[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196366[/ATTACH][/URL] [Broken]
    The Rubik's clock is way too easy.
    It's not a matter of whether or not you can do it, it's how long it takes you.
    You get bored with it too quick.
    Someone gave me this one as a present, it wasn't that hard.
    http://www.chrisandkori.com/_filelib/ImageGallery/Cubes/dinocube.gif [Broken]
    Don't even bother with this pyramid one, you can stumble upon solving it just by turning it at random.
    http://masterblog.front.lv/wp/files/willbe_clock_52_rubik.jpg [Broken]
    This one I figured out the first time at a party when I was extremely drunk.
    Then later I worked it out for each starting hole in my head before I cut out a piece of wood to make my own.
    http://www.hancock.net/~diana/pegs.gif [Broken]
    This one my father taught me how to do when I was just a little kid, and I was addicted to puzzles ever since.
    You start with the center hole empty
    http://stores.brilliantpuzzles.com/catalog/Solitair_MarbleN.Small.JPG [Broken]

    Here's the one I'd like to get next, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet.
    http://www.chrisandkori.com/_filelib/ImageGallery/Cubes/megaminx.gif [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  20. Dec 8, 2007 #19
    I've yet to try any of the variations of the original cube yet but the 3x3x3 cube usually takes about a minute, my record is 56 seconds
  21. Dec 8, 2007 #20
    I think that's normal :) It was the same for me and sometimes only a cramp stopped me.
    I've been cubing since 2003 and my time now is 45 seconds and on good days I get averages in the 38 seconds region.

    What method do you use? I use Jessica Fridrich's method but with the cross on bottom.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook