God's number

Reply #20

jrosina — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:52:18 GMT

YES and HE always WINS!!! HE NEVER Lost Numbers or a FIGHT HE IS THE AWESOM ONE AND HE CREATED THE NUMBERS!!! WHO ELSE

Reply #19

tiggs95 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:20:56 GMT

God plays the lottery..That's not fair...

Reply #18

jrosina — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:06:32 GMT

rd you are funny!! as always! he,he,,,HahaLOL

Reply #17

rdgrnr — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:27:14 GMT

I have always found a sledge hammer to be an integral part of my own personal solution to the Rubik's Cube.

Reply #16

jrosina — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:07:56 GMT

I will disagree with you addai1516, Why?! Because THE ALMIGHTY GOD who is the Creator of Numbers, does have A number!! However, it may not be the number 20

Reply #15

addai1516 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:01:48 GMT

No such thing as god number ..

Reply #14

jimmy4164 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 04:57:54 GMT

I scanned this thread and didn't see this link. Sorry if I missed it above.

http://cube20.org

Reply #13

truecritic — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:35:32 GMT

pumpi, I think you are 100% correct! And if I had the answer to that, people would make out a check to me for $1 Million to $1 Billion per year

Reply #12

truecritic — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:32:42 GMT

I was never interested in a Rubik's cube and haven't seen one in years. So, can't give it a hands-on try.

Quote from video:

Pick up any Rubik's cube, starting in any position...

Reply #11

pumpi76 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:29:46 GMT

i think people will be more interested in finding what sides some casino dice will fall over wanting to know the Rubik s Cube....

Reply #10

jwhou — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:40:04 GMT

The point is that the four squares on the lower right remained stationary throughout all the moves, had they not already been what they should be, the two moves would not have been able to cycle the wrong squares out and the right squares in. Perhaps if the method involved rotating the entire cube as well but then would it actually sequence through all possible combinations rather than find a short loop.

Not only is it not an optimal solution, it's only a solution for a very specific configur... [ More ]

Reply #9

truecritic — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:18:09 GMT

Not making a joke (this time).

The video simply demonstrates that the cube can be done by anyone without any skill. It's not an optimal solution. Sure the original section is not changed - but that could be true no matter what method you use to solve it. Not sure why that matters if the colors all end up where they belong

Reply #8

KY Floyd — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:48:59 GMT

Are you serious or making a joke? The cube is 3x3x3 and he only moves two of the 3x3 surfaces. That leaves a 2x2x3 section that doesn't get changed at all. It only works because that part of the cube was already done.

Reply #7

truecritic — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:31 GMT

ANYONE can solve it.

Approx 100 moves? He moves pretty fast, hard to keep count.

Reply #6

jwhou — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:39:29 GMT

God gets bored too.

Reply #5

jwhou — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:37:40 GMT

The thing is that if Claude Shannon hadn't died of Alzheimer in 1978, we probably would've had not only the number but the solution simply defined back then. His last unpublished paper was on the Rubik's Cube.

Reply #4

KY Floyd — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:06:07 GMT

Anybody can play with a Rubik's Cube, but only some can solve it. Using the fewest moves possible is clearly the best algorithm if your goal is simply to solve it. That's not to say there aren't other interesting solutions, such as using as many moves as possible without repeating a position or recreating a previous pattern, or the fewest moves to finish successive colors.

Reply #3

pumpi76 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:35:50 GMT

like 1 week ago i was going to post that you could/can win the lottery with the rubik s cube but is only if you are trying to win with 1 ticket and is more complex you will need like a supercomputer even though now that i think about it you could retrace the position of the bouncing balls per second...

the way it works is that if you let the bouncing balls machine be like a rubik s cube and each small cube of the rubik s cube be the position of the bouncing balls in time per second you could

Reply #2

birdbreath — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:15:23 GMT

who know's, maybe God would take his time with it as well. not sure the fewest moves is the best algo.

Reply #1

joker17 — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:35:08 GMT

If God is that calculated in his decision making, why is his creation filled with many irrational equations

God's number

Coin Toss — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:49:45 GMT

This is from a Yahoo article on Rubik's Cube:

One may suppose God would use a much more efficient algorithm, onethat always uses the shortest sequence of moves; this is known as God'sAlgorithm. The number of moves this algorithm would take in the worstcase is called God's Number. At long last, God's Number has been shown to be 20.

The research, published online, ends a 30-year search for the mostefficient way to correctly align the 26 colored cubes that make up Erno Rubrik's 1974 inventio... [ More ]