3x3 Rubik's Cube Patterns and Particle Physics

[Math Bear]

Idk about any of this mess, but you should know that your language is as confusing to me as (if not more confusing than) what HK is saying. So stop pretending like you're communicating with the masses

Harrumph!

That is because you probably have trouble reading more than one paragraph at a time, otherwise you would have gotten some understanding out of what I wrote, especially if you were to pick up a cube and try out some of the ideas. They were carefully phrased but only a genuinely experienced and expert cubist could be expected to understand them, they are very emphatically not for beginners! You are being a troll. If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, then stay out of it and stop making a vulgar display of your abysmal ignorance of the thread that is being discussed.

I am not interested in communiticating anything at all to the masses. The Rubik's cube is beyond the understanding of the great majority of the masses. I am only interested in communicating with those elite few who are capable of understanding the cube and sincerely interested in it.

Are you one of those?

 

[obelisk477]

bearly

[emoji106]

 

[qqwref]

Math Bear's posts are looking more and more like Time Cube as this thread goes on.

 

[obelisk477]

Math Bear's posts are looking more and more like Time Cube as this thread goes on.

I just had that thought but I couldn't remember what the website was anymore. I really need to bookmark that page

 

[brian724080]

That is because you probably have trouble reading more than one paragraph at a time, otherwise you would have gotten some understanding out of what I wrote, especially if you were to pick up a cube and try out some of the ideas. They were carefully phrased but only a genuinely experienced and expert cubist could be expected to understand them, they are very emphatically not for beginners! You are being a troll. If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, then stay out of it and stop making a vulgar display of your abysmal ignorance of the thread that is being discussed.

I am not interested in communiticating anything at all to the masses. The Rubik's cube is beyond the understanding of the great majority of the masses. I am only interested in communicating with those elite few who are capable of understanding the cube and sincerely interested in it.

Are you one of those?

Not sure if you're joking here. The "elite few who are capable of understanding the cube and are sincerely interested in it" actually have a system of notation and other conventions for the cube that you do not follow in your posts. If you read Kociemba's response, you would have found that nobody uses the terminology that you have created. I'm sure that Kociemba knows a lot about patterns, and his posts make perfect sense to the average cuber because he isn't using some vaguely defined geometric term to describe patterns of the cube.

Also, you should seriously use Cube Explorer instead of finding patterns by hand. Most importantly, don't use the Rubik's speed cubes. There are so many better speed cubes that you can get for a fraction of the money that you spend on the cubes from the official Rubik's website. (Edit: apparently blah mentioned this previously, sorry for repeating)

Math Bear's posts are looking more and more like Time Cube as this thread goes on.

That is a very funny website indeed

 

[ender9994]

I'm starting to think Gaétan Guimond started another account without us knowing....

 

[AlphaSheep]

I've already brought this up, but one big thing that makes Herbert Kociemba's site so easy to understand, but makes this discussion difficult to follow for the layperson is that this discussion has a severe lack of pictures... Visual cube makes showing examples of patterns so much easier.



You don't even need to know the notation or the moves needed to reach a state because you can just define the cube in terms of facelet colours!

 

[Sin-H]

I'm not a physicist, but I'm 99% certain that physicists really don't want you posing as one of them. Of course, I can never be 100% certain because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you're unfamiliar with this principle, I challenge you to read about it on the Wikipedia page as homework! ^,..,^

I'm a theoretical physicist with some background in QFT and I'm mostly like: "What is this I don't even". I am reading lots of buzzwords with lots of vague descriptions and I don't understand what's going on (But maybe if I take a few hours it will work out, I don't know).

However, blah,

No. SU(2) is S^3, i.e., the 3-sphere, i.e., the unit quaternions. The "rotations of a solid object in 3D space" is not an algebra and it's not SU(2); it's a group and it's SO(3). Actually, you can find out all this just by reading the Wikipedia page for SU(n) ^,..,^

you might want to take into account that SU(2) is, topologically, a double cover of SO(3), and that's why theoretical physicists use it as the spin group in 3D (this also appears to be connected to the fact that you need to rotate fermions by 4pi before they look the same again, and not by 2pi). In that sense, yes, SU(2) can be practically taken as 3D rotations. For a physicist, this doesn't sound as wrong as it probably does for you.

 

[Math Bear]

View attachment 4953Blah, you have inserted yourself into a discussion you have not carefully read. You also do not seem to understand the broader and deeper implications of mathematics and are spreading misinformation. Your complaints about the Rubik's cube group being discrete are silly. How can you not know that continuous groups can have discrete subgroups? Where did you see me saying that the Rubik's cube group is equivalent to SU(2)? But what makes you think SU(2) cannot have discrete subgroups? As for the comment about SU(2) versus SU(3), the first can be modeled in a space of 3 dimensions and easy to visualise as the space of the proper rotations of a 3D object. SU(3) requires a space of 8 dimensions to properly model it. Are you honestly going to insult my itelligence by claiming that it is just as easy to work with a space of 8 dimensions as one of 3 dimensions? Are you good at solving Rubik's cubes in 8 dimensions?

I like playing with 4 dimensions too, but I know how to show it to others and work out problems in Euclidean 4 Dimensial geometry that others can I see and grasp. I wonder if you can do the same? For example, one important fact about 4D geometry is that two perpendicular planes intersect in a single point in 4D space. Can you convincingly demonstrate this to high school students? This is important in the Mandelbrot Set as you can define another fractal on any point in that set that corresponds to the plane perpendicular at that point in the larger 4D space containing the Mandelbrodt Set. . These fractals are called "julia Sets".

As for S4, please enter "S4 group" into Google and see what comes up. You will see that it is shorthand for "Symmetric Group order 4" and my definition off it given above is accurate. If you guys are using it in a non-standard way, then by definition you are using jargon. You should call it something else if you specifically mean the rotational symetries of a cube, even if it is isomorphic to the conventional group S4.

Failure to trecognise the geometrical implications of your algebraic descriptions is what I am complaining about. Can you properly describe the group of rotations of a cube and its subgroups in geometric terms? this is what is so sorely needed. the most basic symmetries involving all 6 faces I call "Rotation" and "Flip". if you deal with symmetries involving 4 equitorial faces of the cube, you get "1/4 turn', and "1/2 turn" symmetries. Can you define all of these in your system of notation so that the definitions are geometrically relevant? These are not enough for the rubik's cube though. Patterns involving only edge cubies can violate parity restrictions on the rotational symmetries of the cube. Therefore, I need to add Mirror symmetries to my basic list of cube symmetries. "Reflection" is accomplished by inverting all three axes of the cube. This symmetry is shown by the classic Checkerboard pattern, you get by doing a half slice on all three middle layers of the cube. The other two Mirror symmetries are parity transforms of the Rotation and 1/4 Turn symmetries respectively. They are called "Swirl" and "Twirl". The last symmetry is 4-way and is made by applying the mirror transformation to the 6-way Flip symmetry. I call this new 4-way symmetry "Adjacent" as it creates two pairs of adjacent faces. thus we have 5 types of 6-way symmetries, 2 of which are Normal and 3 of which are Mirror. There are 3 groups of 4-way symmetries, two are Normal and one is Mirror. All 8 types of symmetries occur with the edge only patterns (such as Checkerboard) on a Normal cube. If a pattern also involves center cubies, then the Mirror patterns are only accessible on a cube that you have turned into a Mirror cube by exchanging two oppposite centers. A secondary problem is whether a pattern involves an even number or a an odd number of pair exchanges. Thus I need the Fermion orbit as well as the Boson Prime order. Most basic patterns occur in Boson/Fermion pairs. This distinction is important with the Mirror patterns too, thus I have to reckon with Mirror Boson and Mirror Fermion orbit patterns. Occasionally other orbits are involved too.

My challenge to you is that I do not believe that your purely abstract algebra approach to describing the symmetries of the cube is adequate. This is not a matter of mathematical theory, but one of linguistic description (and I have a M.A. in Linguistics too). You need to create a customized vocabulary for the Rubik's cube that expresses geometrical relationships as well as algebraic ones. And it should be straight-forward enough to be understandable to any reasonably intelligent cubist who puts forth the effort to master it. If you come up with a decent descriptive language, I will gladly abandon my idiosyncratic system for it but it must describe the geometry of cube patterns!

sincerely,

Math Bear


P.S. Blah, just in case you didnt know, SU(2) stands for "Special Unitary Group order 2". The corresponding Lie algebra is denoted "su(2)". Can you see the difference? I was using the term "algebra informally as a synonym for "group". Any group describes a basic but complete mathematical system of some sort which is what I had in mind. As I have stated before I am not trying to talk to the erudite but to ordinary, non-Sheldon-Cooper type mortals. Most assuredly, I was not thinking of Lie algebras. I am uncomfortable with their lack of asspciativity. It is easy to dispense with commutivity but I think non-associative systems are always at least a bit weird.

 

[qqwref]

and I have a M.A. in Linguistics too

Why do I find this hard to believe?

 

[Sin-H]

P.S. Blah, just in case you didnt know, SU(2) stands for "Special Unitary Group order 2". The corresponding Lie algebra is denoted "su(2)". Can you see the difference?

Mathematicians do know the difference, it's some physicists who never bother to distinguish the Lie Groups from their Lie Algebras.

I was using the term "algebra informally as a synonym for "group". Any group describes a basic but complete mathematical system of some sort which is what I had in mind. As I have stated before I am not trying to talk to the erudite but to ordinary, non-Sheldon-Cooper type mortals.

Don't blame others for not understanding you when you randomly exchange terms which have an accepted distinct meaning. And don't exchange these terms for "mortals" either. I don't think the chance is higher that they know what an algebra is than that they know what a group is, so why not use the correct word in the first place?
Also, what is a "complete" mathematical system? Do you mean completeness in the Banach space sense? In the Gödel sense? In the measure sense? ...

Most assuredly, I was not thinking of Lie algebras. I am uncomfortable with their lack of asspciativity. It is easy to dispense with commutivity but I think non-associative systems are always at least a bit weird.

Why the hell would anyone expect the Lie bracket to be associative? That is not its job. It even looks weird: [[x,y],z] = - [z, [x,y]] can only be equal to [x,[y,z]] when [y, [z,x]] = - [[z,x],y] is zero, and then all the terms are zero. Else the Jacobi identity is violated. And the Jacobi identity is the really important part of Lie algebras.

But what makes you think SU(2) cannot have discrete subgroups?

Again, I do know this. Again, what is your point, exactly?

Wait... it has discrete subgroups, hasn't it? Some of the point groups are discrete subgroups of SU(2) iirc.

If you want to get technical the Group SU(2) underlies both the Rubik's cube and most particle physics.

I'm not sure what "underlies" means. No one is. Because it's not jargon. Oops.

loltechnical. A quick description of what is meant here: Our standard model relies heavily on so-called Yang-Mills theories which are quantum field theories with a gauge group (describing the symmetries of the theory) of the form SU(N). That is what "underlies" means - our theories have an underlying symmetry which is described by the special unitary group. For instance, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on U(1) (and therefore "easy", because it is abelian), and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which describes the strong interaction is based on SU(3). That is why we have one photon (The Lie algebra u(1) has one generator) and eight gluons (the Lie algebra su(3) has eight generators). However, I don't know of any really applicable SU(2) theory. The electroweak part of the standard model has gauge group U(1) x SU(2) which then gives 4 gauge bosons (B, W^0, W^1, W^2) and you obtain the photon and the W+-/Z^0 bosons by doing a change of basis. I think that SU(2) cannot be that easily separated.

Mathematicians tend to work with spaces of n dimensions, so it's just as easy to work with spaces of 8000 dimensions. But that's too abstract for you.

 

[Herbert Kociemba]

As for S4, please enter "S4 group" into Google and see what comes up.

As for S4, please enter "S4 point group" into Google and see what comes up.

Can you properly describe the group of rotations of a cube and its subgroups in geometric terms?

Are flip, swirl and twirl geometric terms?

the most basic symmetries involving all 6 faces I call "Rotation" and "Flip". if you deal with symmetries involving 4 equitorial faces of the cube, you get "1/4 turn', and "1/2 turn" symmetries. Can you define all of these in your system of notation so that the definitions are geometrically relevant?

Why do you redefine the term "Rotation" which has a well defined meaning im mathematics and physics? I suppose you mean the 120 degree rotation around the long diagonal of the cube.
I suppose with "Flip" you mean the 180 degree rotation around an edge. I suppose with "1/4 turn" you mean a 90 degree rotation around a face and with "1/2 turn" a 180 degree rotation around a face.
You think "Rotation", "1/4 turn", "1/2 turn" and "flip" is better than C3, C4, C2(b) and C2(a) ? I must admit I do not like the names for the two different C2-types but else I see no advantage in introducing new names for the Schoenflies-symbols of point groups. Ok, you have a M.A. in linguistics but still I am not convinced about the "geometrical relevance" of your creations (to be honest, I do not know what you mean with "geometrically relevant")

"Reflection" is accomplished by inverting all three axes of the cube. This symmetry is shown by the classic Checkerboard pattern, you get by doing a half slice on all three middle layers of the cube.

I suppose you mean the point Group Ci here, a reflection through the center of the cube. The classic Checkerboard pattern is a bad example for this symmetry, because this pattern has all symmetries the cube has.

The other two Mirror symmetries are parity transforms of the Rotation and 1/4 Turn symmetries respectively. They are called "Swirl" and "Twirl".

These correspond to the point groups S6 and S4. Absolutely no need for new names.

The last symmetry is 4-way and is made by applying the mirror transformation to the 6-way Flip symmetry. I call this new 4-way symmetry "Adjacent" as it creates two pairs of adjacent faces.

This is nothing else as a reflection through a plane which contains a face diagonal. It is called Cs(b), If the reflection plane is parallel to two faces it is called Cs(a). I miss this "2-way symmetry" in your classification of patttern symmetries.

For the description of the symmetries of patterns I also miss in your description the cases where a pattern has more than one of the basic cube symmetries . What symmetry type has the classic Checkerboard pattern for example in your jargon?

 

[Stefan]

I suppose you mean the point Group Ci here, a reflection through the center of the cube. The classic Checkerboard pattern is a bad example for this symmetry, because this pattern has all symmetries the cube has.

Maybe he means something like if you consider just the edges, then M2 E2 S2 shows that reflection.

 

[Math Bear]

General Comments and Introduction

Hee,hee! Boy, somebody sure has sensitive toes! ^,..,^

There is no profit in endless ruminations full of pettifogging and nit-picking.

If you don't like my ideas about the Rubik's cube, that is your problem.

I am ending what is obviously turning into a pointless flamewar.

What unites us is our interest in the Rubik's cube. I am going to make further
contributions using my distinctive approach, too bad if you don't like it.

It occurs to me that I should add visuals to my discussion. I will work on it.

To all the budding young Sheldon Coopers on here, hey! lighten up!

The first goal is to have fun and enhance our understanding of the cube,

Peace and Good Vibes,

Math Bear

P.S. My educational record is I started out as a chem major, with an emphasis on Organic Chemistry.
I was very good at the book work but not the lab work, so I decided to go into something else.
I studied accounting for a year at a business college and worked at a bank for several years.
I got bored stiff and went back to the university. I majored in Asian Studies with Chinese Emphasis
and eventually got a B.A. I later entered graduate school and started work on a degree in Linguistics.
after I got my M.A. in linguistics, I taught 7 years as an ESL instructor, in the U.S. , Mexico, taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
I ended up teaching ESL in a special program on a military base for military students from Kuwait and the U.E.A.
the program i was in abruptly ended when the commander of the base discovered that the directors of the program
were allowing rampant cheating on the test given to test English proficiency at the end of the course. i decided to get
into alternative certification and teach high school. According to my credits, I could teach English, ESL or Mathematics.
Although I had never majored in math, I was always deeply interested in it and I had 20 credit hours past Calculus,
roughly the equivalent of a B.A. in math. I was enrolled in a 20 hour course at the graduate school in my loca university to become a certified
math teacher and was hired by a high school as a math teacher and got my certification in secondary mathematics.
I taught math for a number of years and then was accepted into a program to enable high school teachers to get a
Master's degree in math sponsored by the National science Foundation. They paid for 80% of all expenses and arranged
for the classes to be held in the evening or on weekends and during summer school so our classes didn't conflict with our
work schedules, a major consideration for working teachers. After 3 years I got my M.A. i originally wanted to go on to a phD program
but they are currently doing horrific things to post grads and most people who have PhD and I was definitely too old to have any hope of
ever getting tenure or a research oriented position. Besides the school I wanted to go to would not let you in their program unless you dedicated yourself body and soul to Algebraic Topology, a subject I had no interest in so I gave it up. I have a strong interest in math education on the internet.
I have actually set up a school online in the virtual world of Second Life. This is located in Dalton1 next to Linden Village on the old continent.
If any of you are on Second life (does the thought scare you? ^,..,^ ) You can find my school by putting "The Math Bear Education Intiative" into
Search and teleporting there. I am MathBear Cyberschreiber on Second life and just leave me a message. If you like, I will meet you in-world
at my school or maybe at a sim associated with your university if it has a presence on Second Life.

P.P.S. most high school math teachers of my acquantance do not really understand the mathematics they are teaching. They just present
the material blindly. The students readily pick up on this and this is partly why they are so cynical about math courses. Math teachers with higher degrees ARE knowledgeable bout math and some are pretty sharp. Their students are a lot better motivated.

 

[obelisk477]

You are the definition of pedantic

 

[Herbert Kociemba]

If you don't like my ideas about the Rubik's cube, that is your problem.

I am ending what is obviously turning into a pointless flamewar.

If this is the only response I really regret to have spent hours of time trying to understand what you mean and translating it to a language which is used by a broader community to classify symmetries. And my question about the missing of the symmetry Cs(a) and multiple symmetries in your classification should not be interpreted by you as a flamewar but as a constructive criticism.

So I wish you good luck and more success than in this forum for your further research in the ivory tower.

 

[Artic]

If this is the only response I really regret to have spent hours of time trying to understand what you mean and translating it to a language which is used by a broader community to classify symmetries. And my question about the missing of the symmetry Cs(a) and multiple symmetries in your classification should not be interpreted by you as a flamewar but as a constructive criticism.

So I wish you good luck and more success than in this forum for your further research in the ivory tower.

LOL LOL. And it's sad that the OP ruined what could have been an interesting discussion through his arrogance and dismissal of previous work and research on cube states. He needed to show pictures right from the beginning so we understood what he was talking about, instead of meandering hazy mathematical language that introduced confusion into the whole discussion.

 

[guysensei1]

This is definitely going up on the Forum Awards 2015.

 

[Math Bear]

Not your Fault, Herbert

If this is the only response I really regret to have spent hours of time trying to understand what you mean and translating it to a language which is used by a broader community to classify symmetries. And my question about the missing of the symmetry Cs(a) and multiple symmetries in your classification should not be interpreted by you as a flamewar but as a constructive criticism.

So I wish you good luck and more success than in this forum for your further research in the ivory tower.

Anything involving the Rubik's Cube theory is necessarily going to be rather "ivory tower", though I do see possible EDUCATIONAL applications. My Dear Herbert, you are not responsible for the so called "flame war" and your contributions have been immensely valuable to me and I would welcome any more that you may wish to contribute. So far, you seem to be the only one on here who has any understanding of what I am doing and you have helped lead me to new ideas. Please don't be so sensitive. The development of correlations between the geometric understanding of the cube and the algebraic understanding is essential and needed to fully understand the cube in its full depth. but watch your language. I have no idea what you mean by "symmetry Cs(a)" unless you describe it to me so I can SEE it. This goes too for an awful lot of other people who are reading this thread. The use of such opaque notation makes it impossible to visualise the symmetry it is describing. This board is intended for non-academics so my criticisn of such cryptic descriptive language is valid. I will leave the ALGEBRAIC description of Rubik's cube patterns to you since you obviously have considerable expertise in this. What I am doing is different. I am developing a gEOMETRIC descriptive language for describing the patterns of the cube. I clearly need to try out those programs for creating image files of the cube though so far I havent been successful in figuring out how to embed images into my messages. I realise now it is not enough to merely discuss the geometry of Rubik's cube patterns, I have to show actual pictures of what I am talking about. I understand it is rather perverse to merely talk about geometry without showing actual iimages.

But let me give you an example of what I am talking about when I discuss the importance of the correlation benween geometric and lagebraic understanding of a subject. Think about Freshman Calculus. The subject of the calculus can be developed purely algebraically, using the idea of linear operators on functions and ideas of limits and convergence from Real Analysis, but this purely algebraic approach is not used to teach calculus on a basic level. instead, extensive use of gemetric ideas such as tangent and slope and area under a curve are used to provide vivid motivations for the basic ideas of calculus. You could hardly successfully teach the subject otherwise.

Likewise, if a subject that is as highly geometric as Rubik's cube patterns is to be presented to non-mathematicians, then it should not be presented purely algebraically.

I will rework the pesentation of my ideas with images this time to clarify what I am doing. I am hopeful that if I do that, it will inspire the cubist community at large to explore these patterns and the underlying ideas. I would be delighted if you would then explain the resulting symmetries in the language of group theory and show how they correlate with the visible geometry. I am also hopeful that the analogy between the symmetries of the cube and those of the subatomc particles in contemorary theories of physics will inspire the cubists to take an interest in physics. I suppose that it is maybe a bit too much to hope for to expect that maybe some of the people in particle physics might take an interest in the cube but I will keep trying.

The hard theoretical work that eventually needs to be done is to explain these analogies that occur between the realtionships bween pattern symmetries on the cube and the symmetries of subatomic particles. This is well beyond my expertise. It will require a particle physicist with deep knowledge of the Standard Theory and its extensions such as Supersymmetry, Grand unified Theory and Mirror Matter. I believe that the analogies are related somehow to SU(2) and its equivalets and extensions. It would be great if a technical mathematical explanation in the language of abstract algebra could be developed. Ift hese correlations are non-trivial, then study of the Rubik's cube could be a significant part of the education of students of particle physicts. At least I like the idea! ^,..,^

I won't name names my good Herbert but you were definitely NOT one of those I was thinking about when I was complaining about there being a flame war. You have shown deep insight and made worthwhile contributions. I cringe at the thought of alienatng you!

But I do have to understand you and so shoud others. When you present your ideas using the language of group theory, please explain what this means in visual, geometric terms also. This will help myself and others to learn your system.

Sincerely,

Math Bear

 

[deadmanlsh]

What you are trying to do now is to bridge two disciplines together - that of mathematics and physics or Rubik's Cubes and Particle Theory in particular.

However, what you must understand is that a rudimentary level of understanding has to be reached BEFORE you embark on such an endeavour. That includes the learning of common conventions and other possible information that is NECESSARY in communicating your ideas in a clear, precise and understandable manner. For example, you used your own turning notation. While this is definitely not forbidden nor excessively obfuscating, it would have been easier to reach your target audience by using the conventional notations to ease learning.

It also certainly helps to use proper paragraphing. Chunk related pieces of information together, but have a distinct separation between different ideas. Your posts are walls of text that are hard to read and even harder to comprehend. Moreover, you are the one presenting the information to the users of this site. The onus is upon you to organise and delineate your intend messages properly to your target audience.

Another problem that is extremely evident in your writing is the absence of clarity and precision when it comes to definitions. This is intricately related to the previous problem, as having walls of text with definitions that were already vague enough buried within mounds of unnecessary fluff is extremely detrimental to the readability of your posts. Your definitions of "twirl", "symmetry", "spin" and other self-produced jargon is forgettable at best and incomprehensible at worst. Define them somewhere. Separate them clearly. Provide examples. Be concise and specific. This is in contrast to Herbert Kociemba's website, where the different types of symmetry are lined out in organised and easily digestible tables. You often criticise the website for being too "ALGEBRAIC" and "opaque", whereas yours is "gEOMETRIC (sic)" and "descriptive". If you even bothered to check out prior work done by Herbert Kociemba, you'll realise that his is infinitely more geometrical and intuitive, with pictures and animated cubes to show you the different types of symmetries. Compare this to your posts, which only give solid written instructions to produce on the physical cube. I wonder which is more abstract when it comes to the actual usage of illustration? His pictures even label points, axes and lines to illustrate how the symmetry is produced. This all ties in to the first point I made as well, which is to familiarise yourself with prior work done.

Finally, if you are indeed an experienced physicist, do remember to define technical jargon used in physics. You claim to want to be easy to understand, yet expect readers to know the terminologies used in physics without even providing a definition for key terms. This can be exemplified no more strongly than your use of "SU(2)", "Grand Unified Theory" and "Supersymmetry". I understand that you did refer the readers to other websites to get an idea of what the terms describe, but it would have been best if you at the very least provided sources of information you personally selected in an accessible place. Also, do note the possible hypocrisy you are committing; you expect others to read up on what you are familiar with but refuse to look through the conventions and research done by the community.

Of course, that does not mean all the vitriol being flung around by the community was any more allowable or preferable, but it was ultimately a result of avoidable misunderstandings. This is not helped by the fact that you retaliated in a snobbish manner against them, when in fact both parties probably know a whole lot more than the other party in their respective disciplines. It was especially disappointing to see you calling others "Sheldon Coopers" and other insults of attitude and intelligence. I would say, if anything, that your response was reflective of a foolish snob that is not only all too snobbish, but also all too ignorant, while at the same time expecting your badly written posts to be easily understood by the community (reminds me of a certain name I just mentioned, I wonder what it was?).

All in all, I know you are interested in drawing parallels and analogies between the different fields. However, I have to comment that your methods were rather ineffective. Please familiarise yourself with Rubik's Cube a little more; please present your ideas in a more comprehensible and clear manner; please define your terms; please know your target audience and please do not think that you are a holder of arcane knowledge.

Finally, good luck with continuing on with this project. I hope to see quality content from you soon.