• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

What is God's number on a 4x4 Rubik's cube?

IAssemble

Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
248
YouTube
Visit Channel
What *are* the current lower and upper bounds for 4x4x4?

67 block turns
77 single-layer turns
82 twists (face turns)

http://cubezzz.dyndns.org/drupal/?q=node/view/93


This is from a thread here on speedsolving.

My algorithm counts contiguous layers including one face turned by the same amount as a single move so this is probably close to "block turns" referenced above. So 67 looks like the the current upper bound for this approach.

I think I have only seen the lower bound quoted for "single-layer" turns...

Does anyone know of any other research?
 

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I once made up this formula without any evidence.
(Amount of layers-1) * 10 + 1 for even layered cubes (or use a nice mod function if you want to get all mathy and stuff)
So
1x1x1 = (1-1) * 10 = 0
2x2x2 = (2-1) * 10 + 1 = 11
3x3x3 = (3-1) * 10 = 20
4x4x4 = (4-1) * 10 + 1 = 31
It seems really low but not improbable (and it is correct for 1, 2 and 3). I should simply see the amount of positions that can be reached on a 10x10x10 cube in 101 moves compared with the amount of total positions but I never could be bothered ;)
 

kcl

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,485
Location
Minneapolis, MN
WCA
2013LEJE03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I once made up this formula without any evidence.
(Amount of layers-1) * 10 + 1 for even layered cubes (or use a nice mod function if you want to get all mathy and stuff)
So
1x1x1 = (1-1) * 10 = 0
2x2x2 = (2-1) * 10 + 1 = 11
3x3x3 = (3-1) * 10 = 20
4x4x4 = (4-1) * 10 + 1 = 31
It seems really low but not improbable (and it is correct for 1, 2 and 3). I should simply see the amount of positions that can be reached on a 10x10x10 cube in 101 moves compared with the amount of total positions but I never could be bothered ;)
I was messing with something like this a few weeks ago but I did it wrong. I think you have it right.. :)
 

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Well, we already know that God's Number is Θ(n^2 / log(n)) (see http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?30231). So we can guarantee that any recurrence or formula that does not also grow the same way will eventually be wrong (and probably sooner rather than later).
and by "we" you mean "you and a couple of other people in the speedcubing community that understand math" and actually write things like "Θ" online, right?


 

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Those are just upper bounds though, right? What type of bound would a counting argument make and how long time would it take to compute a optimal solution for a probably harder than average (analogous to the super flip) 4x4x4 scramble?
optimal? Nobody knows but probably "centuries" so nobody is going to start such a calculation because there is no benefit to doing it.

The funny thing with that is always that if you start the calculation on a computer today it would take "100 years".
If you would start it 3 years from now computer power would have (historically) quadruppled and now it would only take "25 years".
So you will finish 78 years earlier by being lazy for 3 years ;)
 
Top