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

Discussion in 'Puzzle Theory' started by rubiksarlen, Mar 16, 2012.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. rubiksarlen

    rubiksarlen Member

    564
    0
    Feb 3, 2011
    Malaysia
    WCA:
    2011TANA02
    YouTube:
    huntforfood99
    http://cube20.org/

    We all know that God's number for a 3x3x3 Rubik's cube is 20 moves. But I have been wondering lately what is God's number for a 4x4x4 Rubik's cube? :confused:
     
  2. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,831
    13
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    Nobody knows, and it's way too difficult to calculate. The best estimates are somewhere in the 30s. /thread
     
  3. Lucas Garron

    Lucas Garron Super-Duper Moderator Staff Member

    Quick, someone register cube21.org to cube50.org
     
  4. Dacuba

    Dacuba Member

    342
    0
    Aug 14, 2010
    Germany
    Remembers me of the surprise challenge thread. When I clicked this one, I first was like "oh no, not again"
     
  5. theZcuber

    theZcuber Premium Member

    2,077
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Central NY, US
    WCA:
    2012PRAT02
    It's been proven to be at least 33 (according to multiple sites), but as far as I know we don't even have an upper bound. What I want to know is how they got the lower bound
     
  6. cuBerBruce

    cuBerBruce Member

    910
    1
    Oct 8, 2006
    Malden, MA, USA
    WCA:
    2006NORS01
    YouTube:
    cuBerBruce
    Last edited: May 9, 2014
  7. Christopher Mowla

    Christopher Mowla Premium Member

    828
    2
    Sep 17, 2009
    New Orleans, LA
    YouTube:
    4EverTrying
    Hey Bruce, could you list some scrambles which generate the worst positions (it doesn't matter how long the scrambles are).
     
  8. AbstractAlg

    AbstractAlg Member

    373
    0
    Oct 30, 2011
    Belgrade, Serbia
    WCA:
    2012OKAN02
    YouTube:
    AbstractAlgorithm
    prove that you can't select all four aces in the deck of cards with only three selections.
    now imagine that after you have selected one card from deck you return it and remove few non-aces cards from the deck depnding on last selected card... all the way to be left with only 4 cards, which are, of course 4 aces.
    similar principle.

    waiting to super-uber-computers to calculate all the states of 4x4 and fewest move solve for each one.
    one can't simply calculate the 4God's number, but dozens can. :)
     
  9. SenileGenXer

    SenileGenXer Member

    203
    1
    Mar 7, 2012
    Virginia, USA
    We seem to have a lot of computing power now. I think it should be calculable.

    How much computing power was needed to prove 20 on a 3x3 and how much time has gone by?
     
  10. StachuK1992

    StachuK1992 statue

    3,808
    15
    Jul 24, 2008
    West Chester, PA
    WCA:
    2008KORI02
    YouTube:
    StachuK1992
    It was just 2 years ago, and read up.
     
  11. AbstractAlg

    AbstractAlg Member

    373
    0
    Oct 30, 2011
    Belgrade, Serbia
    WCA:
    2012OKAN02
    YouTube:
    AbstractAlgorithm
    I thinks it's still incalculable. Those are real big numbers, much more positions. :/
     
  12. Owen

    Owen Member

    1,138
    0
    Nov 2, 2009
    I don't think we can even calculate optimal solutions yet...
     
  13. StachuK1992

    StachuK1992 statue

    3,808
    15
    Jul 24, 2008
    West Chester, PA
    WCA:
    2008KORI02
    YouTube:
    StachuK1992
    Of course we can find optimal solutions, just not as efficiently as we'd like.
    Making a solver for any puzzle isn't hard - doing it efficiently /is/.
     
  14. SenileGenXer

    SenileGenXer Member

    203
    1
    Mar 7, 2012
    Virginia, USA
    That was 35 years of CPU time. That's a rounding error to projects like SETI at home.

    Nonetheless a 4x4 would require an astronomical amont more. Probably more than all the distributed computing projects put together.
    Plus interested qualified people doing the coding.

    I would be interesting to know god's answers.
     
  15. Christopher Mowla

    Christopher Mowla Premium Member

    828
    2
    Sep 17, 2009
    New Orleans, LA
    YouTube:
    4EverTrying
    Link.
     
  16. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,831
    13
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    Indeed... and there are about 10^26 million times as many 4x4 positions as there are 3x3 positions (that's a hundred million million million million). So even if it was as easy to solve a 4x4 scramble optimally as it is to solve a 3x3 scramble optimally, we'd still need a hundred million million million million times as long to get God's Algorithm as we took to do it for the 3x3...

    Considering we're only a few orders of magnitude from the atomic computing limit, I feel like I can predict that this computation cannot be done using our current knowledge of optimal-solving techniques.
     
  17. ben1996123

    ben1996123 Banned

    4,975
    2
    May 17, 2009
    Ponyville
    WCA:
    2009WHIT01
    YouTube:
    ben1996123
    How do we actually know that Kociemba generates optimal solutions? I'm guessing some (probably confusing) group theory stuff.
     
  18. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    4
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    Kociemba isn't used for generating optimal solutions - that is done by brute force. Simple to understand why they must be optimal.

    IIRC when proving god's alg they didn't optimally solve every position, 20 moves is all they needed.
     
  19. ben1996123

    ben1996123 Banned

    4,975
    2
    May 17, 2009
    Ponyville
    WCA:
    2009WHIT01
    YouTube:
    ben1996123
    oh ok.

    yeah, I read this on cube20.org. It says the computers they used could solve 0.36 positions/sec optimally, but 3900 positions/sec in <=20 moves.
     
  20. Is it because you are only taking 3 cards total?

    SURPRISE CHALLENGE IN THE MIDDLE OF A THREAD.

    Do a 4x4 Linear FMC and post movecount (Don't have to type out all the moves)
     

Share This Page