• 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!

Pseudo God's Algorithm Human nxnxn Rubik's Cube Solving Method Created

Are you interested in this method (and perhaps a course to introduce it)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 116 89.2%
  • No

    Votes: 14 10.8%

  • Total voters
    130

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,184
Location
Earth
YouTube
Visit Channel
FMC isn't about being optimal. It's about having as few moves as possible, and that's what this method is for, right? If you could get 30 moves or less easily, it's great for FMC.
I don't want to give the wrong idea here. I never said that this was even close to being move optimal, much less having as few moves as possible. I mentioned that this method is most likely more efficient for the nxnxn in general than it is when being applied to a small cube size like a 3x3x3. Again, perhaps this method can eventually be evolved to be more efficient than its current existence, but I can't make any promises on that.

This method is more of a revolution in the style of solving rather than in the efficiency of solving.
 

irontwig

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
1,778
Location
Sweden
WCA
2010JERN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't want to give the wrong idea here. I never said that this was even close to being move optimal, much less having as few moves as possible.

You don't think you implied that by calling it "pseudo God's algorithm"? Did you edit the fact that you've written a paper which includes 3x3 and 4x4 example solves? I've could have sworn I saw that yesterday. If this approach doesn't produce near-optimal solutions for a completely scrambled cube could it do it for e.g. LL or move reduced cases?

Edit:
I think this might turn out to be something similar to the algebraic solutions to cubic and quartic equations, i.e. something that looks like a holy grail from afar, but turns out to be a whole bunch of work for not a whole lot of satisfaction.
 
Last edited:

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,184
Location
Earth
YouTube
Visit Channel
Everyone, I'm pleased to know how many voters are interested in this method. In my quest for searching for an organization, I have linked to this thread so that they can see the poll to know that people are actually interested. That should help out. This really means a lot!:)

(And please, if someone knows someone who can help me make this process go faster, I would greatly appreciate it.)

Did you edit the fact that you've written a paper which includes 3x3 and 4x4 example solves? I've could have sworn I saw that yesterday.
Yes. I have written a self-contained book (in LaTeX format which is about 350 pages of content + 550 pages of appendices) which contains a lot of hyperlinks for easy navigation within the document.

The first eight chapters of the book are regarding my proofs (I have proved it in multiple ways, in order to describe the structure of all possible single commutator solutions which can exist and to give the reader complete knowledge on the subject of commutators) of the following theorem:
All elements in the nxnxn supercube commutator subgroup (disregarding odd nxnxn supercube elements which rotate fixed centers) have a commutator length of one.

Chapters 9-11 are applications of the theory derived in these first eight chapters, and chapter 12 is all about this new solving method which is also an application of the theory I had to derive to prove the theorem.

Make no mistake, I'm not considering single commutator solves like for this random 3x3x3 position and this random 4x4x4 position to be categorized as the solves I described in this thread, despite that they appear to be solves similar to that 100x100x100 solve. These are commutators after all, and I claim that we don't need commutators at all to solve any size cube or any size minx.

If this approach doesn't produce near-optimal solutions for a completely scrambled cube could it do it for e.g. LL or move reduced cases?
Although I have not explored fewest moves with this method, I believe that the answer is yes for a subset of last layer positions.

I think this might turn out to be something similar to the algebraic solutions to cubic and quartic equations, i.e. something that looks like a holy grail from afar, but turns out to be a whole bunch of work for not a whole lot of satisfaction.
If you like to do any of the following, you will get a lot of satisfaction from this approach.

  • solving Sudoku puzzles
  • balancing chemical equations
  • decoding ciphers
  • simplifying algebraic expressions
  • solving math problems which have long solutions
  • optimizing the efficiency of software
Make no mistake, when this method is released, it is not a method where I give you an abstract formula which is so complicated that you just merely need to figure out how to use it. With this method, there is so much freedom (there are multiple ways to handle any portion of the solving process), and it requires thinking, planning, and creativity.
 
Last edited:

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
If you like to do any of the following, you will get a lot of satisfaction from this approach.

  • solving Sudoku puzzles
  • balancing chemical equations
  • decoding ciphers
  • simplifying algebraic expressions
  • solving math problems which have long solutions
  • optimizing the efficiency of software
Make no mistake, when this method is released, it is not a method where I give you an abstract formula which is so complicated that you just merely need to figure out how to use it. With this method, there is so much freedom (there are multiple ways to handle any portion of the solving process), and it requires thinking, planning, and creativity.
This is sounding even more and more fishy. You sure are claiming a lot...
 

Calode

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
91
Location
Washington
WCA
2016HOOV01
I'm really starting to doubt the legitimacy of this post. Why can't you post an example solve? Surely that would be on the of the easiest ways to explain this method. I really want to see this method in action and learn it, but I'm afraid it might not be a real method.
 

Ollie

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,848
Location
London, UK
WCA
2012FROS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
He doesn't need to partner with some education organization or anything. He can just release the method like everyone else has.

Maybe not, especially if he has invested 6 years of one-and-off thought to a concept that might have a number of (potentially profitable) uses. He is entirely within his rights to explore the possibility of making a bit of money off it (if this is true).
 

Calode

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
91
Location
Washington
WCA
2016HOOV01
Maybe not, especially if he has invested 6 years of one-and-off thought to a concept that might have a number of potential uses. It's his property, he can do what he wants with it.

I know that if I had invested 6 years into something, I'd want to release it, tell everyone about it and get people using it asap. This is something really really cool and I for one would really love to see it.
 

adimare

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
381
Location
Costa Rica
WCA
2011MARE02
Agreed, people who just talk about how awesome what they did is but never make anything available for others are usually lying and just want to get the recognition without actually doing the work. For reference, see every thread started by unsolved ever.
 
Top