Page 1 of 2
Rubix cube
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:04 am
by nekros
I now name this the most addicting puzzle ever. I just got one a couple weeks ago and I've been cubing like crazy. Anybody else here addicted to the cube?
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:57 am
by Combuster
Sorry. Rubik's not my style
my puzzle of choice
Re: Rubix cube
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:56 pm
by Candy
nekros wrote:I now name this the most addicting puzzle ever. I just got one a couple weeks ago and I've been cubing like crazy. Anybody else here addicted to the cube?
Still can solve it within 5 minutes. If I am practiced up again, it drops to 3.
Re: Rubix cube
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:50 am
by jal
Candy wrote:Still can solve it within 5 minutes. If I am practiced up again, it drops to 3.
LOL. A couple of friends of mine can solve it in under a minute :). Myself, I never even tried.
JAL
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:42 am
by Zacariaz
How many different positions or "states" can a rubix cube be in?
I tried to do the math once, but then my head started to hurt.
My best guess right now would be something like:
(6! * 8! * 12!)/6
I don't think it is correct though...
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:27 pm
by nekros
46 quintillion approximately
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:57 pm
by Zacariaz
I doubt that very much.
If I remember correct a quintillion = 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 which is a lot.
Even if every single smaller cube of of the collective 26 cubes could be placed in any position it would only be the equivalent of 26! = 403.291.461.126.605.635.584.000.000. (not considering the fact that a lot of those positions would essentially be the same)
My "logic", of course, could be flawed... (yes, I'm on a star trek marathon.)
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:25 pm
by Alboin
Check out this page.
According to them, a 3x3 has 43252003274489856000 permutations.
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:58 pm
by Zacariaz
first problem is that a quintillion apparently is not the size I was tough, which is 10^30.
second problem is that I missed a important fact, still, it is a very large number.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:07 am
by jal
Zacariaz wrote:first problem is that a quintillion apparently is not the size I was tough
Are you a US/UK citizen, or living in continental Europe using the French system? US and increasingly also UK:
10^6 = million
10^9 = billion
10^12 = trillion
etc.
French system, used in most Western European countries:
10^6 = million
10^9 = milliard
10^12 = billion
10^15 = billiard
etc.
Also see
here.
JAL
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:17 am
by Combuster
lousy brits, walking away from the majority usage (most
countries still use the long scale)
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:20 am
by JackScott
I grew up with Windows telling me how much a million, billion, etc were, so I just use that.
IMHO, 10^9 being a billion is much more sensible (for no good reason other than having a consistent naming scheme).
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:34 am
by Combuster
Long scales are consistent too.
million, milliard
billion, billiard
trillion, trilliard
quadrillion, quadrilliard
etc, etc
The only two real reasons to use one is
1: Taste, good for dictators
2: Because the US does it, which by definition is also a reason to *NOT* do it
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:00 am
by suthers
There are different types off rubix cube with different numbers of squares on the sides, so you should deffine which one your talking about before you argue how many possibilities of positions there are...
Jues
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:15 am
by jal
suthers wrote:There are different types off rubix cube with different numbers of squares on the sides, so you should deffine which one your talking about before you argue how many possibilities of positions there are...
We are talking about
the Rubix cube, not all the spin-offs. That is, 3x3 on each side.
JAL